Search and Seizure

FBI's inventory searches of safe deposit boxes seized pursuant to warrant from self-storage facility that government was investigating for various criminal activities, including money laundering, did not fall within scope of inventory search exception to warrant requirement, even though FBI had standardized inventory search policy, where FBI conducted inventory searches pursuant to supplemental instructions designed specifically for facility; government exceeded scope of warrant authorizing seizure of safe deposit boxes from self-storage facility; warrant specifically did not authorize crim

Neither officers' receipt of emergency services call reporting a potential verbal and physical altercation outside of suspect's home nor fact that officer, when investigating report of potential dispute, observed a female in the home, in combination with suspect's refusal to let officers speak to anyone inside home, established exigent circumstances that could support warrantless entry into home.

Officers did not violate First Amendment rights of arrestees by searching their religious headgear incident to their arrest.

Officers got search warrant to search plaintiff’s motel room, then got oral approval from judge to search his house, but did not physically amend the warrant; search of home violated 4th Amendment, but officers awarded qualified immunity because law was unclear that warrant had to be physically amended; dissent by Judge Otake with respect to qualified immunity, on ground that particularity requirement of 4th Amendment is clear.

Officers demanded that woman escort them to examine cattle on the property, refused to wait until her husband returned home, woman was “seized” within meaning of Fourth Amendment; court denies qualified immunity; “cases clearly establish that forced compliance with orders is a Fourth Amendment seizure.

Plaintiff posted a mock police department page on Facebook and was arrested under a state law that makes it illegal to use a computer to disrupt or impair police functions, indicted by a grand jury, and acquitted after a jury trial; plaintiff had deleted comments on the page that indicated it was fake and copied the department’s warning on its own page word for word; court says whether officers had probable cause was a difficult question, but lack of previous case afford the officers qualified immunity on First Amendment retaliation claim; court holds that officers’ televised announcement o

Officer did not violate 4th Amendment by relying on John Doe informant to get search warrant; officer did violate 4th Amendment and commit Franks violation by misrepresenting to judge who issued warrant that he knew apartment number of premises to be searched when in fact he had guessed at the number and got it wrong; officer violated 4th Amendment by seeking warrant to search for drugs when informant had said nothing about drugs; warrant that was obtained through Franks violation did not protect from suit officer who committed Franks violation for conducting search based on the warrant; of

Officer who shot service dogs in plaintiff’s backyard who presented no imminent danger and were not acting aggressively unreasonably seized the animals and violated clearly established law.

County’s policy of seizing firearms to safeguard them when owner has been transported to psychiatric evaluation after a domestic incident fell within “special needs” exception to Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.

Where other information in affidavit provided probable cause to search, plaintiff had no claim against officer for providing false information in search warrant affidavit.