A federal appeals court rejected a constitutional challenge to a municipal ordinance barring the use of wireless phones without a "hands free" device while driving. Officers had probable cause to stop a motorist for violation of the ordinance, so there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiff also failed to show any violation of equal protection in the ordinance's enforcement. Schor v. City of Chicago, No. 08-2837, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 17993 (7th Cir.).
     A police officer ticketing the plaintiff's car near a crime scene saw bolt cutters in plain view in the backseat. While the plaintiff was detained for suspected burglary of another construction site, he admitted to owning the car and receiving a ticket. After a detective confirmed, by a visual examination, that a paint chip and damaged parts found at a crime scene matched the car, there was probable cause to seize the car. The appeals court rejected the plaintiff's claim that officers had to obtain a warrant to seize the car under these circumstances. Morgan v. Township of Glencoe, #08-2003, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 14595 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
     The highest court in New York ruled that officers may not place a global positioning system (GPS) location tracking device on a private motor vehicle without obtaining a warrant to do so. In this case, officers placed the tracking device on the defendant's car, and used it to track the vehicle's location for 65 days, including its speed and location readings approximately once a minute while the car was in motion. This was allegedly done without a clear justification. The court stated that the 24-hour a day information about a vehicle's location provides disclosure of private trips that may lead to inferences about such things as amorous, religious, and political associations. The court stated that the “potential for a similar capture of information or ‘seeing’ by law enforcement would require, at a minimum, millions of additional police officers and cameras on every street lamp,” so that the GPS tracking devices involve a higher level of privacy threat than simple tracking beepers the U.S. Supreme Court has previously allowed to be placed on cars without a warrant. "Without judicial oversight, the use of these powerful devices presents a significant and, to our minds, unacceptable risk of abuse. Under our State Constitution, in the absence of exigent circumstances, the installation and use of a GPS device to monitor an individual's whereabouts requires a warrant supported by probable cause." People v. Weaver, #53, 2009 N.Y. Lexis 944.
     Police officers were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions in seizing a vehicle from a parking lot and returning it to the purported owner, who had insurance documents and a vehicle registration showing that the vehicle was hers. She also showed the officers a court-issued summons, which indicated that the vehicle was being operated in violation of state law and without her permission. The possessor of the vehicle claimed that carrying out the seizure without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but the officers could reasonably have believed that their actions were legal. Bumgarner v. Hart, #08-1724, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 4650 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Police officer had probable cause to stop a vehicle for violation of an excessive noise statute for playing loud music. When a second officer arrived on the scene, subjecting the motorist to a dog sniff of his car was not a Fourth Amendment violation, since it did not unduly prolong the length of the stop while the citation for noise was being written. Further proceedings were required, however, as to the reasonableness of the searches of the motorist's car and person after the dog allegedly alerted to the driver's seat. This search, the court stated, was not justified as a search incident to arrest, and the motorist's claim that the officer conducted a digital body cavity search of his anus, if true, would indicate an unreasonable search. Pillow v. City of Lawrenceburg, Tenn., No. 07-6464, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 22737 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
     County police officers, a city police officer, and an FBI agent were conducting surveillance on a street when they thought they saw a burglary in progress at a house. They entered the house, and encountered two children, one of whom they tackled, pointing a gun at his head, and using mace against him, while the second child watched. Other children were in a vehicle outside the home with their mother, and officers attempted to stop it. In a lawsuit brought by the mother and her six children, a federal trial court granted the FBI agent summary judgment on claims concerning the alleged seizure of the vehicle and its occupants, since there was no evidence that he was anywhere near the vehicle at the time, and could not be held vicariously liable for the alleged actions of the other defendants concerning the vehicle, since they did not act at his direction or even with his knowledge. The appeals court denied the motion by the FBI agent, the city officer, and one of the county officers for summary judgment on claims by one child who was inside the house for excessive use of force. The court ruled that the alleged spraying of the child with mace while two other defendants allegedly held guns to his head could constitute "excessive" use of force. Couden v. Duffey, No. 03-369, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9681 (D. Del.).
     A county sheriff could not be sued, on the basis of his role as supervisor of deputies who arrived on the scene after FBI agents arrested the plaintiff for bank robbery, and impounded the getaway car, resulting in the impound lot later selling the vehicle after sending the arrestee a notice and publicly posting one. Even if the deputies were found to have violated the plaintiff's rights, the sheriff did not personally participate in, authorize, or acquiesce in their actions. The court also rejected the argument that the impounding of the vehicle under these circumstances constituted conversion since a law enforcement officer may tow and impound a vehicle following a driver's arrest for bank robbery or similar offenses. Eaton v. Whetsel, No. 07-6262, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 11367 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
     While police acted properly in stopping a motorist's vehicle for a traffic violation, and in asking her to exit the vehicle when she could not produce her vehicle registration or proof of insurance, there were questions of genuine fact as to whether they acted in an objectively reasonable manner in acting as though she posed a risk to them or others based on her "argumentative" behavior, and in conducting a pat-down search, even though they never stated that they believed that she was armed. During the traffic stop, the motorist fell, appeared to have a seizure, and died, apparently of a ruptured berry aneurysm. The court rejected a state law wrongful death claim, since there was no evidence that anything the officers did caused the bleeding or the motorist's death. The plaintiff, the motorist's estate, could proceed with a Fourth Amendment claim arising out of the pat-down search. Pinnock v. City of New Haven, No. 3:05cv927, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 39008 (D. Conn.).
     A police officer stopped one motorist for speeding, and a second driver, who had been following the first vehicle, stopped on his own and told the officer that the two vehicles had been traveling together. The officer concluded that the second driver must have been speeding also, and ticketed both drivers. The second driver claimed that the officer engaged in race discrimination. The appeals court rejected that argument, noting that the first driver was white and was the motorist stopped by the officer. Additionally, as the plaintiff driver was never seized or searched, he could not pursue a Fourth Amendment claim. Probable cause existed for the ticket. Idahosa v. Despines, No. 07-2544, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9485 (7th Cir.).
     A police officer stopped a motorist based on his knowledge of a report that Mexican gang members had threatened a man at a residence and his observation of two Hispanic men making a turn and looking at that man's apartment. Rejecting the argument that the stop violated the motorist's rights, a federal appeals court found that the officer made the stop on the basis of his experience and observations, which indicated that the motorist and his passenger might be in the area to carry out the recently reported threat. Lopez v. Bartlett, No. 06-55860, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4690 (9th Cir.).
     Police officers followed a suspect's vehicle on the basis of reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in drug activity, and observed him commit what they reasonably believed were multiple traffic offenses. They also did not issue the arrestee a traffic summons until after his vehicle had collided with an unmarked police vehicle. In light of that, the plaintiff failed to show that the officers, as he claimed, caused the accident, filed a false report for the purpose of violating his constitutional rights, or engaged in traffic stops based on race. The officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also rejected claims against an auto dealer asserting that it lent the police department vehicles knowing that the officers would carry out traffic stops on the basis of race. Martin v. Lakewood Police Dept., No. 07-4542, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3786 (3rd Cir.).
     City and towing company did not violate the rights of a motorist by placing a "boot" on her car, and having it towed and impounded from its location in a condominium building's parking area after the motorist failed to pay certain parking tickets. The vehicle owner had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the parking area because it was shared in common with other occupants of the building. The seizure of the vehicle under the circumstances was authorized by an Illinois state statute, and the plaintiff did not claim that the established procedures for such seizures were violated. Police officers had probable cause to believe that the car was subject to impounding, and the applicable law did not require a warrant to boot and tow the vehicle. Kosyla v. City of Des Plaines, No. 06-2032, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28034 (7th Cir.).
     Sheriff's deputies believed that a parked car was "suspicious" because some boxes and a 5-gallon can could be seen within it. The vehicle was observed within days of some "controversial" international meetings being held in Miami, Florida at which political demonstrations were anticipated, the Free Trade Area of the Americas ("FTAA") ministerial hearings, in November 2003. Upon being informed of the vehicle by the deputies, the officer in charge of the city's bomb squad arrived on the scene and "rendered it safe" by destroying it. The officer, based on the circumstances, was entitled to qualified immunity and had at least "arguable" probable cause to take the actions he carried out. Claims against the city will proceed. Vogel v. City of Miami, No. 07-20436, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 85438 (S.D. Fla.).
     An officer who conducted a search of the arrestee's vehicle while the arrestee was being taken to the police station was not entitled to qualified immunity on an unlawful vehicle search claim. A search, which occurred immediately after the arrestee was placed in the patrol car, was proper, and incident to arrest, but the later search was no longer incident to arrest. Brown v. Fisher, No. 06-3207, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24258 (10th Cir.).
     Officers had sufficient grounds to stop the plaintiff's truck, based on information from witnesses who reported seeing fireworks being set off from a dark colored pickup truck in the area. There was, therefore, no unlawful search and seizure. Miller v. O'Bryan, No. 1:05-CV-0429, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 56911 (N.D.N.Y.).
    Officer's observation of a motorist's defective brake lights was sufficient to support a traffic stop of his vehicle. A federal appeals court rejects the motorist's argument that the officer acted improperly by allegedly pulling him over because his vehicle was "run down," rejecting a claim for supposed "economic profiling." Steskal v. Benton County, No. 06-35053, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 20415 (9th Cir.).
     Officer who stopped vehicle he claimed was going over the posted 25 mile per hour speed limit was not entitled to summary judgment on claims arising from the stop and search of the vehicle, when the driver claimed that he was traveling at exactly the speed limit. The issue of what speed the motorist was traveling at was a factual dispute which had to be resolved by the trial court. Strepka v. Sailors, No. 05-cv-02546, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 47858 (D. Colo).
     Even if traffic rule violations are "civil in nature" under California state law, this did not render officers' actions in stopping a vehicle and arresting the "belligerent" driver who refused to produce his driver's license. The federal appeals court rejected the argument that traffic offenses were "decriminalized" under state law, but found that even if they had been, this would not somehow transform the officers' actions into a Fourth Amendment violation. Officers have discretion to make custodial arrests under California law for failure to present a driver's license after operating a vehicle. Trotter v. Stonich, No. 05-56320, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19954 (9th Cir.).
     The defense of qualified immunity available to officers in federal civil rights lawsuits filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 does not apply to claims arising out of the same incident asserted in a California state law civil rights lawsuit filed under Cal. Civil Code Sec. 52.1 for interference with statutory or constitutional rights. The case involved claims that deputies acted improperly in connection with the plaintiffs' detention, the search and seizure of their car, and the subsequent search of their home. While the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity on a federal civil rights claim because certain actions, even if unlawful, were "reasonable mistakes," an intermediate California appeals court ruled that the defense of qualified immunity does not apply as to the California state civil rights claim, requiring further proceedings. Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, No. B186764, 2007 Cal. App. Lexis 1267 (Cal. App.).
     U.S. Supreme Court rules that a passenger in a car subjected to a traffic stop by a police officer is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes, as much as the driver is, and therefore may challenge the constitutionality of the stop. While the case arose in the context of a criminal prosecution, its reasoning would also be applicable in a federal civil rights lawsuit brought under the same circumstances. Brendlin v. California, No. 06-8120 127 S. Ct. 2400 (2007).
     Motorist who was stopped by a state trooper for driving 61 miles per hour in a 30 m.p.h zone failed to show that the officer acted unreasonably in detaining him for an additional four minutes after he wrote a traffic ticket, in order to await the arrival of a requested police dog, and an additional twelve minutes to search his vehicle after the dog alerted to the passenger side of the car. All of the officer's actions were reasonable under the circumstances, including the motorist's strong body odor, which the officer thought might indicate drug use, and information that the officer had concerning the motorist's prior drug arrest, and his observation of the motorist's pupils, which were small, and which could be indicative of drug use. Morris v. Dean, No. 06-14739, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 10832 (11th Cir.).
     Motorist's claim that a traffic stop and laws that required him to have a state issued license, vehicle registration, and license plates to drive a vehicle, rather than using what he called "private property identification plates" violated his constitutional right to travel were meritless. The court noted that these requirements at issue, if the motorist did not comply with them, only denied him one method of transportation--a self-driven car, and therefore did not impermissibly burden his right to travel. Dean v. Honish, No. 07-1369, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11197 (7th Cir.).
     The use of a drug-sniffing dog to sniff outside a motorist's vehicle was not a search under the Fourth Amendment, so there was no requirement that the officers get the motorist's consent before using the dog in this manner. The use of the dog sniff on the outside of the car did not change the valid traffic stop into an unreasonable seizure. Hugueley v. Dresden Police Department, No. 05-1348, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4922 (W.D. Tenn.). [N/R]
     Ferry transportation company's policy of randomly selecting passengers and vehicles for searches of their carry-on baggage or trunks, adopted in response to the Maritime Transportation Security Act, 46 U.S.C. Secs. 70101-70119, did not violate the Fourth Amendment under the "special needs" doctrine. The searches conducted were not overly intrusive and there was a special need to prevent terrorist attacks on large vessels involved in mass transportation which were found by the Coast Guard to be at an elevated risk of attack. Cassidy v. Chertoff, No. 05-1835, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 29388 (2nd Cir.). [N/R]
     Tennessee Highway Patrol officers were entitled to qualified immunity for stopping a vehicle containing three family members, based on mistaken dispatches giving them reason to believe that the occupants had been involved in a robbery. Appeals court reinstates, however, father's excessive force claim against two troopers who allegedly tackled him and threw him to the pavement face first while handcuffed when he reacted "with horror" to the shooting and killing of a family dog which ran out of the vehicle. Smoak v. Hall, No. 05-6511, 460 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 2006). [2006 LR Nov]
     Evidence supported jury verdict that a series of traffic stops, equipment compliance citations, and a vehicle impoundment were carried out against a California man to unlawfully retaliate against him for his protected free speech activity of complaining about a California Highway Patrol officer to his department. Federal appeals court upholds award of $500,000 in compensatory damages, but rules that punitive damage awards of $4 million were excessive and must be substantially reduced. Plaintiff also receives $800,000 in attorneys' fees. Grassilli v. Barr, No. D044931, 2006 Cal. App. Lexis 1384 (Cal. 4th App. Dist.). [2006 LR Nov]
     Drug suspect's arrest, pursuant to arrest warrant was lawful, and so was the search of the car he was going towards at the time of his arrest, which an informant had told officers had previously had marijuana in it. A search of his second car, found parked in a lot in his apartment complex, if conducted, was not legal, since the officers lacked a warrant, probable cause, a concern for officer safety, or consent to search it. Mack v. City of Abilene, No. 05-10844, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 21033 (5th Cir.). [2006 LR Oct]
     Complaint in lawsuit brought by Hispanic and African-American motorists claiming that county police had a policy of racial profiling in traffic stops was sufficient to meeting the minimum requirements of pleading in federal court, including claims against the county for municipal liability. Feliciano v. County of Suffolk, No. 04-CV-5321, 419 F. Supp. 2d 302 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
     There were issues of fact as to whether an officer's stop of a vehicle and search of a passenger in it was motivated by racial bias, and whether the stop of the vehicle was justified by reasonable suspicion of a crime, barring summary judgment. Johnson v. Anhorn, No. 03-2424, 416 F. Supp. 2d 338 (E.D. Pa. 2006). [N/R]
     Officers had probable cause to stop motorist's vehicle under the Fourth Amendment when it was missing a required front license plate. An officer's subsequent impounding of the vehicle was not "extortion" or any other "racketeering" offense required to support the motorist's subsequent claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951(b)(2), since there was legal authority for his actions. Further, the court rules that the city, as an entity, was not legally capable of "malicious intent" required to support a civil RICO action against it under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961 et seq. Banks v. Department of Motor Vehicles, No. CV 05-2037, 419 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (C.D. Cal. 2006). [N/R]
     Mother and her five children could proceed with their lawsuit asserting civil rights claims based on officers' actions in approaching her car with guns drawn in front of her house when they mistakenly believed that her 14-year-old son, who exited the vehicle, was a fugitive they hoped to apprehend at a nearby house. Couden v. Duffy, No. 04-1732, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 10801 (3d Cir.). [2006 LR Jun]
     Officers had a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal conduct sufficient to stop and search suspect's truck, based on information from a confidential informant and other information suggesting that the suspect and an accomplice were buying decongestant tablets containing pseudoephedrine in large quantities to use for the manufacture of methamphetamine. Officers had probable cause to make an arrest after discovery of a large quantity of syringes and needles, including one used needle, and a bag containing 11 boxes of pseudoephedrine tablets. Kilgore v. City of Stroud, No. 04-6273, 158 Fed. Appx. 944 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Officer's stop of a motorist's vehicle was based on reasonable suspicion that the vehicle matched the description of a getaway car involved in an armed bank nearby, so that the investigation, lasting twenty minutes, and involving the handcuffing of the driver while the car trunk and inside were searched did not violate the motorist's Fourth Amendment rights, despite the fact that it turned out that she and her vehicle were not involved in any criminal activity. Lavender v. City of Blue Ash, No. 05-3058, 162 Fed. Appx. 548 (6th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     Police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on motorist's claim that he commanded her to stop her vehicle through display of his authority, although she was an "innocent" driver. Her right to be free from unreasonable seizure was clearly established. Kingdom v. City of Rivera Beach, No. 05-10870, 154 Fed. Appx. 131 (11th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Officers' observation of obscured vehicle registration sticker on license plate gave them probable cause to stop truck for investigation, even if their real motivation was to investigate a 9-1-1 call concerning the driver of a truck allegedly taking photos of a little girl walking in the area. No reasonable jury could have found that they lacked probable cause for the stop or that the motorist's subsequent consent to the search of his truck and home was coerced. Davis v. Novy, No. 04-4096 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 265 (7th Cir.). [2006 LR Feb]
     Police officer's videotaping of a traffic stop, and of a subsequent search of the motorist's home, did not violate any clearly established right of the motorist, who was stopped for speeding. The officer was also entitled to qualified immunity for asking the driver whether he would be willing to submit to a search of his person, vehicle and home, which revealed marijuana in his pocket. While the drugs were suppressed during a criminal prosecution against the motorist on the basis that the consent given was not voluntary, the federal appeals court ruled that a reasonable officer, under the circumstances, could have believed that the consent was consensual. The Vermont Supreme Court ordered further proceedings, however, as to whether officers engaged in unnecessarily destructive behavior of the motorist's property during the search of his home, and whether they violated his rights when, following the initial search of his home, they returned and allegedly forced their way in again over his wife's objections. Sprague v. Nally, No. 03-489, 882 A.2d 1164 (Vt. 2005). [N/R]
     Texas state troopers were entitled to qualified immunity for using force against vehicle passenger during traffic stop which resulted in her suffering a broken arm when there was reasonable suspicion to investigate whether she was guilty of public intoxication, and her "aggressive demeanor" and the possibility that she had a weapon justified a pat-down search and handcuffing. Her "further resistance" to the search and handcuffing provided the authorization for the amount of force used. Padilla v. Mason, No. 08-03-00123-CV, 169 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2005). [N/R]
     Impoundment of car from the owners' driveway after an officer observed the husband teaching his unlicensed wife how to drive was an unreasonable seizure unjustified by the "community caretaking" doctrine. Summary judgment for city and towing company in lawsuit was improper. Miranda v. City of Cornelius, No. 04-35940, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 24666 (9th Cir.). [2006 LR Jan]
     A motorist was not precluded, by his state misdemeanor conviction for going through a stop sign, from pursuing his federal civil rights claim based on his alleged unreasonable stop, unreasonable detention and unreasonable search. Under California state law, the misdemeanor conviction was not necessarily binding in a subsequent civil lawsuit. Federal court rules that, in a federal civil rights lawsuit, a prior state court proceeding will be given the same preclusive effect, or lack of effect, as would be given to that proceeding in state court. Heck v. Humphrey, No. 93-6188, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), which bars federal civil rights lawsuits for damages if success in that claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction not previously set aside, does not, the federal trial court held, apply if the plaintiff is no longer in custody. Cole v. Doe 1 through 2 Officers of the City of Emeryville Police Dept., No. C-03-5643, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (N.D. Cal. 2005). [N/R]
     Officer acted properly, while investigating a prowler call, in stopping the only car observed in the area, which had tinted windows obstructing his view inside, and he and another officer acted properly in attempting to conduct a pat-down search of a passenger outside the vehicle who was known to be a convicted narcotics felon. Appeals court fails to reach issues of whether officers acted lawfully, however, in shooting passenger, and in hitting him and using a dog against him after the shooting, in light of disputes as to whether he was actually armed with a gun and continued to pose a threat after he was shot. Holeman v. City of New London, No. 04-5031, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 21213 (2nd Cir.). [2005 LR Nov]
     Officer's alleged premature termination of breathalyzer test when motorist was initially unable to produce an acceptable breath sample, resulting in driver's license being suspended for purported refusal to submit to the test, was not a "conscience-shocking" act sufficient to support a claim for violation of substantive due process. Depoutot v. Raffaelly, No. 05-1529, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 21444 (1st Cir.). [2005 LR Nov]
     Factual disputes concerning a traffic stop barred summary judgment for deputy sheriffs who stopped motorist who claimed that the stop was based on racial profiling rather than legitimate suspicion of violation of traffic laws concerning speeding. Court finds no basis, however, for claims against the county or sheriff as there was not a history of alleged race-based traffic stops, and the deputies involved had been trained to enforce laws without regard to race or ethnicity. Christopher v. Nestlerode, No. CIV. A. 104CV0977, 373 F. Supp. 2d 503 (M.D. Pa. 2005). [N/R]
     Search warrant issued for impounded auto as part of investigation of double murder was not a "valid" warrant on which reliance was objectively reasonable when the make, model, year, VIN, and license plate number were wrong and actually described another auto owned by another member of the same family. Officers were therefore improperly granted summary judgment on claims that they unlawfully searched the vehicle. Knott v. Sullivan, No. 04-3045, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 16588 (6th Cir.). [2005 LR Sep]
     Police officer did not violate tow truck driver's Fourth Amendment rights by stopping her vehicle to investigate whether she had towed a car in violation of the provisions of a county ordinance, when the ordinance required that the car owner or their agent be present, and the towing company had a history of repeatedly ignoring that provision of the law. Poole v. Pass, No. 1:04CV1268, 351 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Va. 2005). [N/R]
     Sheriff's deputies did not violate an arrestee's rights by impounding his motor home and inventorying the contents after his arrest for driving without a valid driver's license. Despite the arrestee's argument that there were other occupants of the vehicle who could have driven the vehicle away, the impoundment was carried out under the sheriff department's standard policy, and there was no evidence that the deputies acted for the sole purpose of conducting a criminal investigation or in bad faith. Rose v. Loos, #03-35986, 130 Fed. Appx. 78 (9th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Police chief should have known that the warrantless seizure of 70 "derelict" vehicles from salvage yard property was unlawful and that ordinance providing for such seizures without pre- or post-deprivations hearings violated due process. His supposed reliance on the ordinance and consultation with a city attorney did not excuse him from knowing the applicable law. Lawrence v. Reed, No. 04-8030, 406 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Jul]
Officer had reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory traffic stop based on a number of factors, including traffic violations, and the location and time of day, entitling him to qualified immunity on racial profiling claims asserted by vehicle's occupants. Anderson v. Bott, No. 03-16169, 127 Fed. Appx. 266 (9th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     California officers who presented a car owner with the choice of being arrested on the basis of a "repo man's" citizen complaint or agreeing to allow him to repossess the vehicle did not violate her Fourth Amendment or due process rights. They were faced with conflicting versions of who had last had possession of the vehicle and were trying to peacefully resolve a late-night confrontation. Meyers v. Redwood City, No. 03-15872, 400 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR May]
     Federal appeals court upholds constitutionality of Detroit anti-vice operation involving the use of undercover female police officers posing as prostitutes in high-crime areas to make arrests for soliciting prostitution and seize vehicles driven or utilized by males, imposing forfeiture if applicable fees and fines were not subsequently Ross v. Duggan , No. 02-1987, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 28049 (6th Cir. 2004), recommended for full publication, 2005. [2005 LR May]
     Police officer could not have had sufficient reasonable suspicion to stop a car based on an anonymous phone call which said teenagers in baggy pants were looking into the windows of cars in a hotel parking lot and his observation of the motorist's car coming from the hotel soon after the report of the call. The officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because he reasonably should have known that he needed to corroborate the anonymous tip. The call itself did not report any criminal conduct. Srisavath v. Richardson, #03-5869, 115 Fed. Appx. 820 (6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Officer did not violate clearly established law in stopping a cab and detaining its driver, despite the fact that the cab bore a different number than the vehicle reported to be involved in an armed robbery when the cab was within a mile of the reported crime and the driver matched a general description of a suspect. Davis v. City of Cincinnati, No. 03-4599, 113 Fed. Appx. 662 (6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     A determination by a state traffic tribunal that there had been probable cause under Rhode Island law to stop a vehicle barred relitigation of the issue in the motorist's subsequent federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that the stop was unlawful. Wiggins v. Rhode Island, #02-1418, 326 F. Supp. 2d 297 (D.R.I. 2004). [N/R]
     Officer had a proper basis for stopping a vehicle even if motorist was correct in disputing the officer's claim that he had not come to a complete stop, when he did not dispute that he failed to give a turn signal and that he was in violation of a requirement to display temporary vehicle tags. Officer was entitled to summary judgment in motorist's federal civil rights lawsuit, since he did have two undisputedly valid reasons for stopping the vehicle. Carr v. City of Erie, #03-3607, 110 Fed. Appx. 236 (3rd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     The application of a California statute, prohibiting "unauthorized" emergency vehicles from using emergency light bars, to the law enforcement department of a recognized Indian tribe was discriminatory and preempted by federal law. There was no rational justification for treating tribal emergency vehicles differently than other authorized state, federal or private emergency vehicles. County sheriff's department therefore acted improperly in repeatedly stopping and citing the tribe's police officers for violating the statute whenever they traveled on non-reservation roads to respond to emergency calls from noncontiguous sections of the reservation. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Smith, No. 02-56943, 388 F.3d 691 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Summary judgment in federal court on civil rights claims arising out of officers' traffic stop of motorist barred him, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel from relitigating in North Carolina state court, in the context of state law claims, essential elements of his negligence, false arrest, and assault claims which had been decided against him in the federal proceeding. Defendant police officers and municipality were therefore entitled to summary judgment, since the federal court found that the officers acted reasonably in their stopping and detention of the motorist and in their show of force and pat-down search executed at the time of the stop. Williams v. City of Jacksonville Police Department, No. COA03-1450, 599 S.E.2d 422 (N.C. 2004). [N/R]
    It was clearly established prior to August of 1999 that a traffic stop of a vehicle was not permitted without some reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, so that officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that they stopped a vehicle merely because it was observed at an "odd hour" driving through a "high crime" area in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Holeman v. City of New London, No. 3:00CV1608 (DJS), 330 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D. Conn. 2004).[N/R]
     Summary judgment for officers on motorist's illegal search claim overturned because of a material issue of fact as to whether a firearm seized was visible from outside the vehicle. Boone v. Spurgess, No. 03-3841, 385 F.3d 923 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Dec]
     Motorists' claims against individual officers that they were stopped and searched without probable cause were time-barred when they were not named as individual defendants until after the statute of limitations expired. While the city had allegedly refused to release the officers' names to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs only filed their lawsuit one month before the statute expired, and failed to pursue discovery requests to obtain the officers' names until seven months later, so they were not entitled to tolling (extension) of the statute of limitations. Hines v. City of Chicago, #03-1595, 91 Fed. Appx. 501 (7th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Officer's suspicion that vehicle was speeding was objectively reasonable despite his reliance on his own observations rather than on use of radar device when he followed the vehicle for approximately a third of a mile to confirm that it was traveling at an excessive speed. His stop of the vehicle was therefore proper, and the officer acted properly in directing a passenger to exit the vehicle following the valid stop when the car contained four persons and the stop was in a "high-crime" area. Further proceedings were needed, however, on passenger's claim that the officer used excessive force against him in the course of the stop and on the issue of whether the passenger cooperated with the officer's instructions or was validly arrested for obstruction of justice. Veney v. Ojeda, 321 F. Supp. 2d 733 (E.D. Va. 2004). [N/R]
     Officers had sufficient reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle and request that the driver perform field sobriety tests after they observed a pickup truck weaving in its lane and straddling the dividing line on the highway. Blackstone v. Quirino, 309 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D. Me. 2004). [N/R]
     Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for arresting a motorist for refusal to obey orders to exit his vehicle to sign a speeding citation and for arresting his brother, a passenger, for interference with the officers in repeatedly advising the driver not to obey them. Use of pepper spray was also justified when vehicle occupants, in response to officer reaching his hand inside the vehicle, began to roll the window up on his arm. Lawyer v. City of Council Bluffs, No. 03-1032, 361 F.3d 1099 (8th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Aug]
     Police officers who responded to a radio call for back-up during a traffic stop were entitled to qualified immunity in motorist and passengers' lawsuit challenging the reasonableness of the detention and its length, as they did not personally participate in the stop and detention and were entitled to rely on statements made by the officer who had observed the vehicle and the alleged grounds for the stop. Lewis v. City of Topeka, Kansas, 305 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (D. Kan. 2004). [N/R]
     Police officer could not be held liable for investigatory stop of car when a reasonable officer could have had articulable suspicion that the motorist had solicited a prostitute, even if that was not the officer's subjective motivation for making the stop. Federal appeals court overturns $17,500 award to motorist. Bolton v. Taylor, No. 01-2227, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 8758 (1st Cir). [2004 LR Jun]
     Inoperable tag light on truck gave officer a basis for a traffic stop, and subsequent "belligerent and confrontational" behavior by motorist provided probable cause for a custodial arrest. Officer's use of Taser gun to accomplish the arrest was not excessive force under the circumstances. Draper v. Reynolds, #03-14745, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 9498 (11th Cir.). [2004 LR Jun]
     FBI agent seeking bank robbery suspect acted reasonably in stopping a vehicle and mistakenly detaining its driver and passenger based on circumstances of his observations, including passenger's presence inside store at time when confidential informant was to have met with suspect there, and his wearing of a white baseball cap, along with order from superior to stop the vehicle. Agent was therefore entitled to qualified immunity from unlawful seizure claim. Schultz v. Braga, 290 F. Supp. 2d 637 (D. Md. 2003). [N/R]
     Plaintiff failed to adequately allege that an official city policy or custom was behind the alleged disposal of his personal property, which was inside another person's car when it was impounded. City therefore could not be held liable for violation of his due process rights. Further, adequate state law remedies for retrieval of property had been available to plaintiff. Jones v. City of St. Louis, 285 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (E.D. Mo. 2003). [N/R]
     Officers' stops and detentions of African-American bicyclists, in response to information that "two black males" had stolen bicycles in the area, did not constitute selective enforcement of law based on race, in violation of equal protection. King v. City of Eastpointe, No. 01-2303, 86 Fed Appx. 790 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
      Motorist convicted of cocaine trafficking on the basis of evidence uncovered during search of his vehicle following a stop for following too closely behind another vehicle could not pursue a federal civil rights claim seeking money damages for alleged unlawful search and seizure when his conviction had not been set aside, and a damage award would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. Ballenger v. Owens, #02-7394, 352 F.3d 842 (4th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Mar]
     Police had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the trunk of a city-owned motor vehicle being used by a fire department employee based on information obtained by a confidential informant that the employee had unlawfully been collecting absentee ballots at a house party and had placed a bag of them in the trunk of his city vehicle. Luellen v. City of East Chicago, #02-3188, 350 F.3d 604 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Motorist asserted a claim for violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"), 18 U.S.C. § 2721, after police officer who pulled her over obtained private information from vehicle licensing records concerning her and her husband, allegedly without a permissible purpose for doing so, since he had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to "run the plate" of the vehicle. Luparello v. Incorporated Village of Garden City, 290 F. Supp. 2d 341 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
     Motorist asserted a claim for violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"), 18 U.S.C. § 2721, after police officer who pulled her over obtained private information from vehicle licensing records concerning her and her husband, allegedly without a permissible purpose for doing so, since he had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to "run the plate" of the vehicle. Luparello v. Incorporated Village of Garden City, 290 F. Supp. 2d 341 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
    Officers had probable caused to arrest the driver for obstruction of traffic and search the vehicle when he was found "asleep" at the wheel of his car in the street at an intersection during rush hour. There was no violation in arresting him for both obstruction of traffic and possession of a controlled substance even if they didn't know what the powdery substance found in the vehicle was. Ochana v. Flores, #02-2227, 347 F.3d 266 (7th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Feb]
     Deputy was entitled to qualified immunity for stop, search, and brief detention of motorist based on a witnesses report that she had seen persons carrying "guns or squirt guns" getting into a van similar to the one he was driving. Haynie v. County of Los Angeles, No. 01-55731, 339 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Nov]
     Officer did not detain a stopped motorist for an unreasonable length of time. His decision, while writing a citation for a lane violation, to seek assistance from his supervisor and wait for the supervisor to arrive, made after the driver demanded the names and badge numbers of the officers involved in the stop, was reasonably related to the circumstances that caused the stop in the first place. Wilson v. Trumbull County, Ohio, No. 02-3134, 69 Fed. Appx. 282 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Placing parking tickets on illegally parked cars was sufficient to provide due process notice to vehicle owner of the claimed parking violations and of the fact that accumulating three unpaid and unappealed such tickets could result in the placing of an immobilizing "wheel boot" on the auto. Plaintiff showed, however, that the city failed to provide a "meaningful opportunity" to be heard before or after the placement of such a "boot" on his car, since the tickets did not explain how to contest the validity of the placement or explain how and when the "boot" could be removed. Individual defendants, however, including the city's mayor, a police officer, and a parking monitor, were entitled to qualified immunity from liability because the law in the area of "wheel booting" was not clearly established. Gross v. Carter, 265 F. Supp. 2d 995 (W.D. Ark. 2003). [N/R]
     Vehicle owner's claim for alleged unreasonable seizure of her vehicle accrued, for purposes of a three year statute of limitations on the date that she realized that her vehicle had been seized, rather than a later date when she obtained clear title to the vehicle. Lawsuit was therefore time-barred. Jonker v. Kelley, 268 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D. Mass. 2003). [N/R]
     Boat owner was properly awarded $100,000 in damages for unfruitful search of his boat for drugs; affidavit for search warrant failed to provide probable cause since it did not show the basis for a belief in the reliability and veracity of the informant, or the basis of his purported knowledge, nor did the agent submitting the affidavit attempt to independently investigate the information. Maudsley v. State of New Jersey, 816 A.2d 189 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2003). [2003 LR Oct]
     Officers providing security outside concert site had reasonable suspicion that there might be weapons inside a vehicle, which gave them an adequate basis for making an investigatory stop of the car. Officers' conduct did not amount to an arrest of the driver or the passengers. Alexander v. Haymon, 254 F. Supp. 2d 820 (S.D. Ohio 2003). [N/R]
     Municipality could not be held liable for officers' alleged improper searching of the trunk of a motorist's car during a stop without his consent or any other sufficient legal reason to do so, in the absence of any evidence showing that official policies, customs, or practices of the village caused the actions. Warner v. Village of Goshen Police Dept., 256 F. Supp. 2d 171 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
     African-American motorist did not show that police officer's traffic stop of her vehicle was racially motivated. The officer had grounds to stop her based on observations of her vehicle crossing the center line of the highway, and there was no evidence that similarly situated persons of another race were not stopped and ticketed. Johnson v. Crooks, No. 02-1915, 326 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Jul]
     Sweep of high school for drugs with drug sniffing dogs by sheriff's personnel at the request of school authorities, combined with pat-down searches and a strip search of a student in a private room on the basis of individualized suspicion once a package of drugs was found were not unreasonable. Officers also did not use excessive force in allegedly choking a student to prevent him from swallowing a package of marijuana seeds, but their subsequent strip search of him in the school's parking lot was "excessively intrusive." Rudolph v. Lowndes County Board of Education, 242 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (M.D. Ala. 2003). [2003 LR Jun]
     When officers knew that the vehicles in question had been rebuilt from salvage and had been told that replacement parts might either not have VIN numbers or else not match the public VIN of the vehicles, there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the officers reasonably believed that missing or mismatched VIN numbers established probable cause for seizure of the vehicles. Appeals court rules that there was also a valid issue as to the adequacy of the procedure provided by the state of Arkansas for car owners to recover vehicles seized by police. King v. Fletcher, No. 022-1967, 319 F.3d 345 (8th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Upholding jury verdict in favor of officer on false imprisonment claim by motorist and passenger detained on suspicion of drug offenses, Nebraska Supreme Court finds jury instructions adequate on when an officer may arrest without a warrant. Nauenburg v. Lewis, No. S-01-576 655 N.W.2d 19 (Neb. 2003). [2003 LR May]
     Officer did not use excessive force in positioning his truck directly in front of motorist's truck, drawing his gun, and physically removing motorist from vehicle after motorist had allegedly been involved in two hit-and-run accidents and had failed to stop after a roadblock with marked police vehicles, three stop stick attempts, or after all his tires had deflated. Harrell v. Purcell, 236 F. Supp. 2d 526 (M.D.N.C. 2002). [N/R]
     N.C. intermediate appeals court upholds dismissal of motorist's constitutional due process challenge to program under which he was issued a traffic citation for running a red light after an automatic camera allegedly photographed his vehicle doing so. Structural Components Int. Inc. v. City of Charlotte, No. COA02-200, 573 S.E.2d 166 (N.C. App. 2002). [N/R]
     California officers' initial stop and investigation of vehicle without license plates was reasonable, but there was a jury question as to whether they acted improperly in engaging in a prolonged two hour detention of the driver and her passenger, and whether they improperly engaged in a warrantless search of the two occupants' home during that time when all that was consented to may have been an officer accompanying the driver into the home to retrieve the passenger's California identification card. Intermediate appeals court reinstates lawsuit by vehicle occupants.. Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, #B148398, 128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 627 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 2002). [2003 LR Apr]
     Washington State Patrol exceeded the authority granted in a state statute, RCWA 46.55.113, in adopting a regulation that requires the impoundment of every vehicle driven by a driver arrested for having a suspended or revoked license. Statute only authorized impounding of vehicles at the discretion of the officer. In Re Impoundment of Chevrolet Truck, #71848-2, 60 P.2d 53 (Wash. 2002). [N/R]
     Motorist's claim that she did stop at a blinking red light barred summary judgment for officer in her lawsuit claiming that his stop of her vehicle violated her Fourth Amendment rights, since she had a clearly established constitutional right not to be stopped without reasonable suspicion that she had violated a traffic law. Lamarche v. Costain, 225 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D. Me. 2002). [N/R]
     Impoundment of motorist's truck after a minor traffic accident, based on the vehicle not being licensed, registered, or insured was not an illegal seizure, since it was based on the state's determination that such vehicles are a threat to public safety. Search of vehicle was justified as a safety precaution because of the motorist's affiliation with a group known to carry weapons and assert that they were not subject to the law. Bybee v. City of Paducah, #01-6440, 46 Fed. Appx. 735 (6th Cir. 2002). [2003 LR Jan]
     Officer who impounded a motorcycle could reasonably have believed that he had a basis to do so because of a stolen vehicle report from the motorcycle's seller, despite information that the motorcycle was the subject of a private contract dispute, when the alleged purchaser refused to cooperate with the officer's investigation by showing proof of payment, proof he had obtained title, or, indeed, the location of the motorcycle. Officer was entitled to qualified immunity under these circumstances from Fourth Amendment claim. Pickens v. Miller, 216 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2002). [N/R]
     Vehicle owner had no privacy interest in auto parked on city street; no warrant was required to seize vehicle after default judgment issued for failure to pay parking fines. Administrative parking violation notices provided were sufficient to give vehicle owner notice of available pre- and post-deprivation remedies. Rackley v. City of New York, 186 F. Supp. 2d 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [2002 LR Jul]
      Motorist and his wife were entitled to nominal damages for unreasonable detention and search of their vehicle during a traffic stop, but could not be awarded damages for injuries that resulted from the discovery of incriminating evidence during the search and from the motorist's time in custody on charges of unlawful possession of the weapons and narcotics found during the search. Padilla v. Miller, 143 F. Supp. 2d 479 (M.D.Pa. 2001). [N/R]
     Officers were justified in conducting a search of a vehicle's passenger compartment and front seat for weapons in order to ensure their safety after an arrestee refused to exit his car and was therefore taken from it by force. Smith v. City of New Haven, #3:99-CV-157, 166 F. Supp. 2d 636 (D. Conn. 2001). [N/R]
     344:117 Federal jury awards $50,000 in damages to motorist allegedly stopped without justification and illegally searched and battered by officer. Morrison v. Simmons, No. 98-CV-560, U.S. Dist. Ct. Dayton, Oh., June 2, 2001, reported in The National Law Journal, p. A7 (June 25, 2001).
     341:75 Audio tape of police radio, including sound of siren in unmarked car being activated, was properly admitted into evidence and shifted the burden to the motorist plaintiff to show the inauthenticity of the tape; his mere assertion that he had heard no siren did not create a genuine issue of fact in his lawsuit over the stop and search of his vehicle. Smith v. City of Chicago, No. 99-2965, 242 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2001).
     341:78 Officers acted reasonably in making investigatory stop of vehicle driving at half the allowable speed limit at 4 a.m. through a neighborhood which had been an area of recent violent criminal activity; motorist's initial refusal to stop justified officers' conduct, including approaching stopped vehicle with guns drawn. Watkins v. City of Southfield, No. 98-2336, 221 F.3d 883 (6th Cir. 2000).
     341:78 Officer was entitled to qualified immunity for making checkpoint stop of hunter's vehicle to conduct a deer tag and weapon safety check; appeals court expresses no opinion on whether checkpoint was actually unreasonable, but holds that the law on the subject in November of 1997 was not "clearly established." Mollica v. Volker, No. 99-9287, 229 F.3d 366 (2nd Cir. 2000).
     339:36 After evidence of 80 pounds of hallucinogenic mushrooms seized from airplane were suppressed in criminal prosecution of plane owner, he could not recover, in subsequent federal civil rights case, damages related to the expenses of defending against the criminal charges. Hector v. Watt, No. 00-3084, 235 F.3d 154 (3rd Cir. 2000).
     329:74 Evidence that occupants of a motor vehicle worked in the "adult entertainment industry" and that one of them was a prostitute who had worked in a legal brothel was irrelevant to issues in federal civil rights lawsuit over officer's detention of them following a vehicle stop and search of their possessions; introduction of evidence would also be prejudicial; state law emotional distress claim did not alter result. Skultin v. Bushnell, 82 F.Supp. 2d 1258 (D. Utah 2000).
     329:75 California highway patrol officer owed a duty of reasonable care to occupants of a motor vehicle that he ordered to pull over to highway's center median rather than right shoulder; appeals court reinstates personal injury lawsuit by vehicle occupants injured when an oncoming truck struck their vehicle from behind. Lugtu v. California Highway Patrol, #D032518, 2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 216, 94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 113.
     330:85 Federal appeals court upholds $245,000 award of compensatory and punitive damages to three 17- year-old boys, two African-American and one white, on claim that two police officers illegally stopped and searched their vehicle and used excessive force, including pulling and squeezing their testicles, during pat-down search, and were motivated by racial bias in carrying out one-hour stop, search and detention; alleged racial bias was a proper basis for punitive damages award. Price v. Kramer, #97-56580, #98-55484, 200 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2000).
     331:99 $4.95 million settlement reached in lawsuit over death of man, who allegedly was beaten by officer, when police used pepper spray on his brother during a traffic stop. Plaintiffs claimed the action was racially motivated. Smith v. Village of Hoffman Estates, No. 97 L-605, U.S. Dist. Ct. (N.D. Ill.), June 27, 2000, reported in Chicago Tribune, Sec. 2, p. 1 (June 28, 2000).
     331:101 There was a factual issue as to whether three plainclothes officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of the occupants of a car when they thought the occupants acted "nervous"; officers were entitled to qualified immunity, however, on excessive force claims based on their firing back after shots were fired at them. Jackson v. Sauls, #98-8980, 206 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir. 2000).
     332:126 Forty-five minute length of traffic stop of a vehicle was justified when the trailer it was pulling did not display valid registration plates as required by Massachusetts state law and officer had to obtain information from another state as to what that state, from which the motorist had come, required plates on a trailer. Standifird v. Town of Boxborough, 84 F.Supp. 2d 213 (D. Mass. 2000).
     334:158 Federal appeals court rules that the absence of a visible shoulder harness pulled across the bodies of a motorist and their passenger gave officers in Iowa an articulable suspicion that a state seatbelt law was being violated, justifying an investigatory stop of the vehicle; officer's allegedly perjured testimony that he saw unattached shoulder harnesses hanging down, when vehicle seat belts attached at the seat rather than from above, was irrelevant to the existence of grounds for the stop. Thomas v. Dickel, No. 99-3239, 213 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir. 2000).
     325:7 Officer's observation of vehicle stopped the night before, in which occupants had been minors smoking marijuana, combined with observation of occupant returning to vehicle from liquor store with large bag, provided him with reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify stop; finding liquor within gave him grounds to arrest minor occupants; officer was entitled to qualified immunity for overnight detention of 17-year-old minor held in jail because police officer father declined to accept custody of son. Trzaskos v. St. Jacques, 39 F.Supp. 2d 177 (D. Conn. 1999).
     325:14 Officers acted reasonably in stopping vehicle, ordering occupants out at gunpoint, handcuffing occupants, and placing them in the back of police vehicle, based on radioed reports that gave them reasonable suspicion that occupants had been involved in the possible shooting of a security guard or police officer during a fight in a tavern parking lot; detention for 30 minutes to an hour did not change investigatory stop into an arrest. Houston v. Clark County Sheriff Deputy John Does, #97-3911, 174 F.3d 809 (6th Cir. 1999).
     317:78 Federal appeals court reinstates class action lawsuit claiming that Border Patrol agents stopped motorists without reasonable suspicion of illegal immigration activity solely on the basis of Hispanic appearance in the day; class of "all motorists" driving in the area after dark also approved, since ethnic origin cannot be determined in the dark. Hodgers-Durgin v. De La Vina, #97-16449, 165 F.3d 667 (9th Cir. 1999).
     {N/R} Factual issues existed as to whether county had policy of violating motorists' rights or was deliberately indifferent to unconstitutional treatment of motorists stopped for traffic infractions. Henry v. County of Shasta, 133 F.3d 512 (9th Cir. 1997).
     306:92 Officer conducted illegal search of inside of vehicle when he had not arrested motorist or taken custody of her vehicle and did not have any reason to suspect that weapons were in vehicle or that motorist was dangerous; appeals court upholds award of $1 in nominal damages and 33 cents in attorneys' fees; officer waived qualified immunity defense by not pursuing it at trial. McCardle v. Haddad, 131 F.3d 43 (2nd Cir. 1997).
     298:158 Federal appeals court upholds award of $10,000 each to two black men stopped in car for purported investigatory stop and ordered out of vehicle at gunpoint, when they did not fit details of descriptions of suspects sought; officer's conduct, under the circumstances, violated the Fourth Amendment and officer was not entitled to qualified immunity Washington v. Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 1996).
     299:170 Police department not liable for alleged pretextual stop of vehicle based on drug courier profile when there was no evidence of a policy or custom of making such stops Ryan v. Board of Police Com'rs of City of St Louis, 96 F.3d 1076 (8th Cir. 1996).
     283:110 Warrantless seizure and search of truck parked in driveway of arrestee's home did not violate Fourth Amendment when vehicle matched kidnapping victim's description of vehicle in which she had been abducted, and officers believed that vehicle was the location in which offender had hidden his gun Capraro v. Bunt, 44 F.3d 690 (8th Cir. 1995).
     284:124 Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for mistakenly stopping car in which suspect was not riding, since stop was based on reasonable suspicion, but were not entitled to qualified immunity for alleged use of excessive force in carrying out the search of the occupants of the vehicle, who were female driver and five children, rather than male suspect sought Taft v. Vines, 70 F.3d 304 (4th Cir. 1995). [Cross-reference: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith). Immunity] {N/R} Factual issues concerning whether there was reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop of vehicle precluded summary judgment/qualified immunity for defendant officers Karnes v. Skrutski, 62 F.3d 485 (3rd Cir. 1995). [Cross-reference: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith). Immunity]
     274:157 Bare allegation of improper search during valid traffic stop was insufficient to state claim for Fourth Amendment violation Marcias v. Raul A (Unknown), Badge No 153, 23 F.3d 94 (5th Cir. 1994).
     Factual questions existed as to whether employees of company impliedly consented to search of their vehicles without individualized suspicion or probable cause simply based on presence of sign in parking lot stating that vehicles parked there would be subject to search McGann v. Northeast Illinois Reg Commuter RR, 8 F.3d 1174 (7th Cir. 1993).
     Investigatory stops of autos based solely on motorists' match with specified drug courier indicators, absent individualized suspicion, violated the Fourth Amendment; court finds that many of the indicators used would apply to a "substantial percentage" of law-abiding motorists Whitfield v. Bd of Cty Com'rs of Eagle Cty, 837 F.Supp. 338 (D.Colo 1993).
     State liable for $2,95372 for injuries to driver and vehicle resulting from state police officer pulling driver from stopped vehicle without determining whether vehicle's transmission was in "park" or "drive" Martin v. State Through DPS, 597 So.2d 1092 (La App. 1992).
     Alcohol control officer lacked probable cause to search vehicle for illegal liquor; suspect's last known complicity with bootlegger was three years earlier Howard v. Vandiver, 731 F.Supp. 1290 (N.D.Miss 1990).
     Police use of a roadblock to stop a fleeing motorist can constitute a fourth amendment seizure Brower v. Inyo County, 44 CrL 3175 (March 21 1989).
     Officer entitled to qualified immunity for searching car in which he saw object which he believed might be a weapon passed between passengers. Navratil v. Parker, 726 F.Supp. 800 (D.Colo 1989).
     Main "river block" stopping all canoes on river violated constitutional rights because of further searches of stopped canoeists without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Hatfield v. Com'r of Inland Fisheries, 566 A.2d 737 (Me 1989).
     Investigative stop and search of car in parking lot may have been improper. Melson v. Kroger Co, 578 F.Supp. 691 (E.D. Mich 1984).
     Prior notice not necessary before towing illegally parked vehicles Breath v. Cronich, 729 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir. 1984).
     Proper notice given to out of state resident for seizure and sale of van; city liable for deputy's acts, not sheriff Cais v. Pichler, 473 N.Y.S.2d 719 (NY City Civ Ct 1984).
     Detainment of individuals and car search done in reasonable belief they had set fire to officer's house Diehl v. Gavin, 585 F.Supp. 1310 (M.D. Pa 1984).
     OK to probe tailpipes Department of Transportation v. Armacost, 474 A.2d 191 (Md 1984).
     Sheriff liable for damages to vehicle being towed Breath v. Cronvich, 729 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir. 1984).
     Roadblocks for sobriety check upheld Little v. State, 479 A.2d 903 (Md 1984).
     Drug capsules in plain view illegally observed by police Tetreault v. State, 485 N.Y.S.2d 864 (A.D. 3 Dept 1985).
     Sheriff not liable for deputy's seizure of truck without probable cause -- no personal involvement or gross negligence in supervision Bigford v. Taylor, 834 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1988).
     " See also: Administrative Liability: Training; Assault and Battery: Physical; False Arrest/Imprisonment: Improper Detention