In a decision authored by Justice Alito last week, the Supreme Court found that laws imposing criminal penalties for refusal to take a breath test do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches, but that criminal penalties for refusal to take a blood test do.
Warrantless pinging of defendant’s cell phone was reasonable where government proved good faith belief immediate apprehension was necessary after defendant was dangerous and linked to a body of person the government had approached to be an informant, says Second Circuit.
Last week, the Fifth Circuit determined that the good faith exception applied to prevent the suppression of evidence obtained after officers used a canine to sniff the perimeter of a garage. The court found unpublished and inconclusive case law sufficient to demonstrate that a dog sniff of a garage is “close enough to the line of validity.”
The First Circuit recently reaffirmed that lack of reasonable suspicion to arrest a person was insufficient to suppress evidence arising from that arrest in an immigration proceeding.
Yesterday, the First Circuit denied a defendant’s privacy interest in mail addressed to his “personal addresses” that responded to fraudulent invoices the defendant sent to various trade associations.
The Fourth Circuit recently held that an officer who makes a lawful stop and has reasonable suspicion a passenger is armed may frisk that individual.
Recently, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Hernandez v. Mesa to address issues arising out of the actions of U.S. Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa when he fired a shot from United States soil that killed 15-year old Mexican boy Sergio Hernandez on Mexican soil.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently found that an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when his communications with an overseas foreign national were incidentally intercepted.
Twice pepper-spraying a detainee in the back of a patrol car did not violate the detainee’s Fourth Amendment rights, where the detainee was violently kicking the car door and resisting arrest, the Eleventh Circuit recently held in a § 1983 matter.
A driver of a disabled vehicle was not “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment where an officer asked for and received possession of the driver’s license, the Eleventh Circuit recently held.
The Ninth Circuit recently granted qualified immunity to an officer who arrested a driver without actually possessing probable cause to authorize the arrest because a reasonable officer could have known that probable cause did exist for the arrest.
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that an individual has a property right in his or her pet, the unreasonable seizure of which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment governs a claim for unlawful pre-trial detention even beyond the start of legal process, the Supreme Court recently held in an opinion allowing a Section 1983 action to proceed against officers on grounds including the plaintiff’s pre-trial detention based on falsified evidence.