Search and Seizure

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.

Clearly established in 2013 that officer must provide notice to gun owner of ex parte application for order permitting destruction of weapon.

Affirming denial of preliminary injunction, holding plaintiffs not likely to succeed on claims that aerial surveillance program violated Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy or First Amendment associational claim; program was short-term, involved tracking movements in public, was conducted from navigable airspace, and was not used to target particular individuals, but only those present at a reported shooting, armed robbery, or carjacking; court notes that decision should not be read as endorsing all forms of aerial surveillance.

Warrantless seizure of vehicle suspected of having been involved in hit-and-run collision was justified under automobile exception to Fourth Amendment and sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity.

Even with reasonable suspicion that visitor was attempting to bring drugs into prison, investigator violated her Fourth Amendment rights by strip searching her without giving her option of leaving prison rather than being subjected to search, but case law did not clearly establish right to have option to leave and thus officer was entitled to qualified immunity; temporary detention of prison visitor for a few minutes while investigators searched her car did not violate Fourth Amendment.

Claim that officer entered onto property at 2:00 AM, stood under the carport and asked occupant for his name and driver’s license when he came out alleged an illegal search; officer’s request that occupant accompany him to police car did not amount to a seizure.

Clearly established in 2013 that police officers cannot rely on judicial determination of probable cause where that was premised on officers’ material misrepresentations to court.

On appeal regarding defendants’ motion to dismiss Muslim plaintiffs’ claims regarding illegal electronic surveillance by an FBI managed informant, court rules: plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations with government agent that were recorded; plaintiffs had reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations in mosque prayer hall when informant was not present, but defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for taping conversations because as of 2006 and 2007 no federal or state court had held that individuals generally have a reasonable expectation of privacy