Petitioner had a tribal ID and no DL and said he was not subject to the jurisdiction of any nontribal officers (facts sound like he was claiming to be a sovereign American Indian citizen). His case in federal court essentially was an effort to block the state courts from deciding his criminal case over his arrest, and that violates the Rooker\/Feldman doctrine. In re Hall, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89375 (E.D. Mich. June 26, 2013).<\/p>\n
Arguing consent only in the district court does not include attenuation of the consent. Here, police entry was justified because defendant\u2019s co-conspirators were being arrested. They entered when somebody saw them and ran from the door. Even if there was a Fourth Amendment violation, there was consent and it was attenuated. This defendant, however, was arrested outside and brought in. United States v. Moreno-Ortega<\/a>, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13194 (11th Cir. 2013).*<\/p>\n Plaintiff teacher was arrested for sexual offenses involving students. A state grand jury didn\u2019t indict him, and he sued everybody involved, including the students. The fact that some of the things alleged against him couldn\u2019t be proved under state law, a given because of age, for instance, didn\u2019t undermine the probable cause for arrest for something. Summary judgment properly granted. Gonzalez v. Butts County<\/a>, 522 Fed. Appx. 742 (11th Cir. 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading