\u201cAnd if Derringer intended to argue that counsel should have moved to suppress the cell phone videos, he did not identify any basis for challenging the validity of the search warrant that resulted in the seizure of the cell phone or for suppressing the phone or its contents.\u201d Derringer v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 32024 (6th Cir. Dec. 16, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiffs\u2019 Fourth Amendment excessive force class action claim fails. \u201cThere was no \u2018seizure\u2019 of the class members within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because the record showed that defendants’ use of airborne and auditory irritants was not objectively aimed at restraining the class members, even temporarily.\u201d Some individual claims fail on qualified immunity. Puente v. City of Pheonix, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 32202 (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in suitcases apparently removed from a car that fled police and ended up on the back porch of a house. No one claimed the suitcases to have a privacy claim in them. United States v. Lane, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227893 (D.S.C. Dec. 17, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cAnd if Derringer intended to argue that counsel should have moved to suppress the cell phone videos, he did not identify any basis for challenging the validity of the search warrant that resulted in the seizure of the cell phone … Continue reading