Search and Seizure

Officers entered plaintiff’s front porch with guns drawn, handcuffed him, and patted him down as part of a burglary investigation and found a weapon and drugs; with respect to the warrantless entry onto the porch, court finds porch was clearly with the curtilage of the home; it was clearly established that warrantless search of curtilage is unconstitutional; but court distinguishes entry onto porch for purpose of seizure and holds that law was not clearly established that would be unconstitutional.

Reasonable juror could find that warrantless entry into home was not justified by emergency aid exception; anonymous call does not provide objectively reasonable basis; court rejects series of factual arguments by defendant; fact that person who answered door opened it only slightly and used her knee to prevent police from opening it further did not provide cause to enter: “exercising her Fourth Amendment rights can hardly be ground for police to circumvent the core right protected by the Amendment”; absent exigent circumstances warrantless entry into home violated clearly established law;

Massage industry was a “closely regulated” industry in California and warrantless search of massage parlor came within exception to warrant requirement for an administrative search of a “closely regulated” business; three necessary requirements were met: curtailing prostitution and human trafficking is a substantial government interest; warrant exception is necessary to further the regulatory scheme considering the potential ease of concealing violations; the inspection program, in terms of the certainty and regularity of its application provided a constitutionally adequate substitute for a

Relying on Caniglia, court holds that trooper who entered home without a warrant with estranged wife of son of homeowner to gather her things, over objection of homeowner, committed an unlawful entry; trooper denied qualified immunity although actions predated Caniglia, because previous 6th Circuit law held community caretaking exception to warrant requirement could not be applied except “when delay is reasonably likely to result in injury or ongoing harm to the community at large.

Court rejects notion that community caretaking functions of police create a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home; reverses summary judgment in favor of officers who entered plaintiff’s home without a warrant after he agreed to go to a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation and seized his firearms believing him to be suicidal; opinion distinguishes situation in which exigent circumstances require entry to render emergency assistance to injured occupant or protect occupant from imminent injury; concurrences note other situations where entry may be ne

Denial of motion for preliminary injunction reversed because plaintiffs were likely to succeed on merits of Fourth Amendment claim based on aerial surveillance program in which multiple planes flew orbits over city photographing 32 square miles per image per second, obtaining an estimated twelve hours of coverage of around 90% of the city each day, in effect tracking every movement of every person outside in the city, allowing identification of individuals through analysis of points on their location history; action was not moot, although program was discontinued.

High school students at a football camp on a university campus were held in a room for several hours and questioned about observing a female coach while undressing; court affords officers qualified immunity because law was not clearly established as to whether reasonableness standard for student searches of New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), applied to student seizures, rather than probable cause standard, and officers could have concluded seizure was reasonable.

Not clearly established in August 2014 that citizen had Fourth Amendment right to be free from officers’ conspiracy to search tablet computer without warrant.

Where trooper deployed spike strips in attempt to stop speeding motorist, but car drove around strips and did not stop, there was no application of physical force and attempt to stop car did not amount to a seizure.

Holding unreasonable the seizure and retention for twelve days of plaintiff’s cell phone and camera near police station where he was photographing police vehicles and people.