{"id":7254,"date":"2012-08-11T09:12:18","date_gmt":"2012-06-07T00:11:30","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-06-06T20:11:10","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7254","title":{"rendered":"S.D.Ohio: Where car was validly impounded, difficulty in recovering it isn’t a Fourth Amendment claim"},"content":{"rendered":"

Plaintiff\u2019s car was validly towed to impound because she was hospitalized after an accident. She had difficulty in regaining her vehicle, and she sued for $500B. \u201cPlaintiff’s claims do not appear to challenge the actual seizure of her vehicle, but instead focus on her inability to regain possession of her vehicle. Plaintiff’s interest in regaining her vehicle, however, is outside the scope of the Fourth Amendment. See Fox v. Van Oosterum<\/a>, 176 F.3d 342, 351 (6th Cir. 1999) (\u2018[T]he Fourth Amendment protects an individual\u2019s interest in retaining possession of property but not the interest in regaining possession of property.\u2019).\u201d Mathis v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety<\/a>, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76780 (S.D. Ohio June 4, 2012).<\/p>\n

Defendant was possibly speeding and hastily exited from a freeway, but the officer didn\u2019t stop the defendant. He followed him home. Defendant got out of his van and went onto his porch and the officer followed. The attempted stop on defendant\u2019s porch was without reasonable suspicion of any wrongdoing other than the alleged traffic offense, and that wasn\u2019t good enough. Defendant testified that he did not know there was a police officer in the car because it was unmarked. \u201cSgt. Norman followed and grabbed Defendant by the back of his coat. Defendant pulled away and continued behind the house. At this point, uniformed officers appeared on the property, and they Tasered, handcuffed and arrested Defendant.\u201d The search that relieved him of his gun was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Walker, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76781 (S.D. Ohio June 4, 2012)*, reconsideration denied 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111919 (S.D. Ohio August 9, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/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-7254","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7254","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=7254"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7254\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}