The L.A. Press Club\u2019s suit against DHS for excessive force against the press corps can proceed and summary judgment for the defense is denied. \u201cThe Court rejects Defendants’ standing and First Amendment arguments for reasons similar to those already articulated in its PI and Stay Orders. The Court likewise rejects Defendants’ arguments regarding Plaintiffs’ excessive force claims. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged at least some physically-incapacitating uses of force that may constitute unreasonable seizures under applicable Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and others that \u2018shock the conscience\u2019 under the substantive due process test.\u201d L.A. Press Club v. Noem, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9983 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201c[T]he Court concludes that Rinke had reasonable suspicion based on his observations of Rivers when he initially made contact. Rinke’s wholly credible testimony of (1) an \u2018overbearing\u2019 odor of perfume, which he judged to be a \u2018masking smell,\u2019 (2) Rivers’ slurred speech, and (3) her \u2018glossy\u2019 eyes provided reasonable suspicion of her intoxication.\u201d United States v. Rivers, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9161 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 16, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The L.A. Press Club\u2019s suit against DHS for excessive force against the press corps can proceed and summary judgment for the defense is denied. \u201cThe Court rejects Defendants’ standing and First Amendment arguments for reasons similar to those already articulated … Continue reading