The Massachusetts Supreme Court reversed a trial court holding that the Fourth Amendment and Massachusetts Constitution governed searches by private school officials. The trial court found no reason to distinguish between public and private school students, but the Supreme Court found that it was a significant difference. This simply is not “state action” for search and seizure purposes. Commonwealth v. Considine, 448 Mass. 295, 860 N.E.2d 673 (January 31, 2007).<\/p>\n
There was probable cause to arrest the defendant based on his actions while surveilling another person for whom the officers had probable cause. United States v. Pena, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6519 (N.D. Ill. January 24, 2007).*<\/p>\n
Officers who detained a passenger in a car who was intoxicated and apparently suffering from a mental disorder acted reasonably in a \u00a7 1983 case. Polcyn v. Martin, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44416 (D. S.C. October 17, 2005):<\/p>\n
The Court finds that the facts of the instant case align more closely with those in Gooden<\/em> and S.P.<\/em> than with those in Bailey<\/em>. Here, Defendants responded to an emergency call from Nicholson, who exhibited concern for Polcyn’s safety. Further, Defendants possessed information which indicated that Polcyn was suffering from a bipolar disorder and had a drinking and, possibly, a drug problem. In contrast with Bailey, Defendants found Polcyn not in a place of safety, such as her home, but in a vehicle with a stranger who indicated that he had no desire to transport her any further and that he had just picked her up as she walked down the side of the road. Also, unlike Bailey, Polcyn did not deny that she suffered from a mental condition. In addition, Defendants had been informed that Polcyn had been intoxicated while walking down the side of a roadway. Based upon these facts, “[r]easonable officers, relying upon … Gooden<\/em> [and S.P.<\/em>] and the other circuit court decisions addressing similar situations, would have concluded that involuntarily detaining [Polcyn] was not only reasonable, but prudent.” Id.<\/em> at 267. In sum, given the facts known to Defendants and the totality of the circumstances, Defendants had information which would have led a reasonable officer to make a “practical, nontechnical” determination, Gates,<\/em> 462 U.S. at 231, that Polcyn was a potential danger to herself or others. Therefore, Defendants did not violate Polcyn’s Fourth Amendment rights.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Officer who witnessed an accident and saw the injured defendant remove a clear plastic bag to secrete it in the car had probable cause to search for the bag because it was apparent that it likely contained drugs. Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17 (January 31, 2007), rev\u2019g 163 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. App. \u2013 Austin 2005).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading