Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his prison visit with his brother being recorded on body camera of a nearby correctional officer. Saunders v. Vilbrandt, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 989 (W.D. Va. Jan. 2, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cTo the extent Hernandez argues Sergeant Skalisky’s drawing of his weapon or keeping his finger on the trigger during the search amounted to a section 1983 violation (regardless of whether he fired the weapon), that argument fails. Hernandez cites no cases to show that this conduct violates clearly established law. It may not be best practice to have a weapon drawn in these circumstances, but even routine traffic stops can sometime escalate into violent confrontations. [\u00b6] Because Hernandez fails to satisfy the clearly established prong, he falls short of overcoming Sergeant Skalisky’s qualified immunity defense.\u201d Hernandez v. Norton, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4 (10th Cir. Jan. 2, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff sued his mortgage company in federal court to stop a foreclosure in state court. He included a Fourth Amendment claim. [Aside from a foreclosure not being a Fourth Amendment seizure, which is undecided] the Rooker\/Feldman doctrine bars the entire action. Pastrana v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235287 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his prison visit with his brother being recorded on body camera of a nearby correctional officer. Saunders v. Vilbrandt, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 989 (W.D. Va. Jan. 2, 2025).* \u201cTo the extent … Continue reading