\u201cPlaintiff’s only purported basis for a Fourth Amendment claim is a vague assertion that \u2018handcuff\/restraints = false report.\u2019 (Compl. at 6). Liberally construed, this appears to suggest that Plaintiff allegedly was seized without sufficient cause. In the prison context, however, Plaintiff’s temporary placement in hand and leg restraints did not rise to a Fourth Amendment violation.\u201d Stalling v. Castellano, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195651 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this case, officers got a warrant for a business’s Nest videos to show a crime. Campbell v. State, 2025 Md. App. LEXIS 839 (Oct. 2, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s patdown during this traffic stop was by consent. State v. Mack, 2025 Mo. App. LEXIS 651 (Sep. 29, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant doesn\u2019t get access to the unredacted search warrant papers that could reveal the CI\u2019s identity. People v. Bleyden, 2025 NY Slip Op 05197 (1st Dept. Sep. 30, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cPlaintiff’s only purported basis for a Fourth Amendment claim is a vague assertion that \u2018handcuff\/restraints = false report.\u2019 (Compl. at 6). Liberally construed, this appears to suggest that Plaintiff allegedly was seized without sufficient cause. In the prison context, however, … Continue reading