{"id":6566,"date":"2012-06-10T19:40:16","date_gmt":"2012-01-20T06:47:22","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-01-20T06:47:22","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6566","title":{"rendered":"S.D.Ohio: Overseizure was slight and not prejudicial nor \u201cabrasive\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The fact some small things were seized under a documents warrant did not rise to the level of an \u201cabrasive\u201d search (<a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=214192109682226057&amp;q=586+F.2d+1117+&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">United States v. Searp<\/a>, 586 F.2d 1117 (6th Cir. 1978)) justifying suppression of all that was within the warrant. The fact the warrant was not present for the search was a potential Rule 41 violation, but it was not a constitutional issue, and defendant did not show prejudice. United States v. Sadler, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5207 (S.D. Ohio January 17, 2012).*<\/p>\n<p>Merely having to post bond wasn\u2019t shown here to be a real Fourth Amendment seizure issue. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca1.uscourts.gov\/cgi-bin\/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-1897U.01A\">Moreno-Medina v. Toledo<\/a>, 458 Fed. Appx. 4 (1st Cir. 2012) (unpublished)*:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Construing the plaintiffs\u2019 complaint in the light most favorable to them, the district court speculated that the only potentially cognizable post-arraignment deprivation Moreno suffered was having to post a $10,000.00 bond. The court concluded that, because Moreno was able to post the bond and was not detained, the bond was a \u201crun-of-the-mill\u201d pre-trial release condition and did not amount to a Fourth Amendment seizure. Nieves, 241 F.3d at 55; see also Harrington, 610 F.3d at 32-33. Because the plaintiffs have not put the issue squarely before us, we need not address today whether a post-arraignment release on bond, standing alone, could ever approximate a Fourth Amendment seizure for purposes of a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6566\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6566","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6566","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6566"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6566\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6566"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6566"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6566"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}