In a \u00a7 242 prosecution for violating civil rights, the defense proposed expert is barred from opinion on whether probable cause existed for the arrest. \u201cWhether a given set of facts constitutes probable cause to arrest or charge for a crime is within a jury’s ordinary knowledge and experience, as reflected in the constitutional requirement of indictment by grand jury. \u2026 Regardless of whether it goes to an element or an ultimate issue, the existence of probable cause is a legal conclusion that must be left to the jury. \u2026 I therefore grant the Government’s motion to prohibit Rodriguez from testifying as to whether Boruchowitz had probable cause to arrest Evans.\u201d United States v. Boruchowitz, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215666 (D. Nev. Nov. 27, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The prior pending action doctrine justified dismissal of the seizure claim in this case. The parties were a little different but the causes of action were the same. State ex rel. Dunn v. Burton, 45710, 2024 Conn. App. LEXIS 315 (Nov. 26, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s stop was admittedly pretextual, but there at least was an objective basis for it. The ultimate dog alert gave probable cause. United States v. High, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215214 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 29, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In a \u00a7 242 prosecution for violating civil rights, the defense proposed expert is barred from opinion on whether probable cause existed for the arrest. \u201cWhether a given set of facts constitutes probable cause to arrest or charge for a … Continue reading