A DNA ion scan of a car door handle was reasonable, relying on United States v. Jones, 2024 WL 1810220 (D. Minn. Apr. 25, 2024), finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in an ion scan on an apartment door from a common hallway. Also, defendant lacks standing in a place searched: \u201cMr. Cone-Wade has not shown a reasonable expectation of privacy in any of the places searched or the items seized, nor has he even argued that he has one.\u201d United States v. Dirksmeyer, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155086 (D. Minn. Aug. 29, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe parties do not dispute that Smith acted within his discretionary authority. And Smith has waived any issue concerning whether he violated \u2018clearly established\u2019 law at the time of the alleged violation because he failed to raise it in his opening brief on appeal.\u201d The \u201cany crime\u201d rule for malicious prosecution was not clearly established at the time of the arrest, and that means judgment for defendants. Sorrells v. Dodd, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21914 (11th Cir. Aug. 29, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On a mistaken identify arrest by the USMS, the information that the officers were relying on gave them reasonable grounds to believe he was the guy wanted. Therefore, this was a reasonable mistake and no liability. Henry v. Essex Cty., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21925 (3d Cir. Aug. 29, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A DNA ion scan of a car door handle was reasonable, relying on United States v. Jones, 2024 WL 1810220 (D. Minn. Apr. 25, 2024), finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in an ion scan on an apartment door from … Continue reading