Police officials did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of police officers by searching them after the residents of a home that they were searching accused him of stealing $1,750 in cash during the search. A reasonable person in the plaintiffs' position would not have feared arrest or detention if they had refused the defendants' request to search them for the money. The fact that one of the plaintiffs agreed to the search only because he was taking a nonprescription supplement to clean his colon and therefore had an immediate need to use the restroom and couldn't do so until he had been searched did not turn what occurred into a "seizure." Carter v. City of Milwaukee, #13-2187, (7th Cir.).
     Television station's broadcasting of the identity of two former undercover officers and their undercover status while reporting on allegations that they were involved in a sexual assault incident did not support claims for either invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress under New Mexico state law. The officers were later cleared of any involvement in the sexual assault. Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., No. 06-2001, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16720 (10th Cir.).
     The release of a police officer's personnel file after a highly publicized traffic stop could not be the basis of liability for the police chief and city manager in his federal civil rights lawsuit. The release did not violate his constitutional rights to privacy or due process, so the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Additionally, the court finds that the officer's own "penchant" for attention by the media led to the voluntary release of his personal information into the public eye. Hall v. City of Cookeville, Tennessee, No. 04-6133, 157 Fed. Appx. 809 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Police officers stated a claim against an arrestee for violating a Massachusetts state statute prohibiting unconsented to interception of wire and oral communications in alleging that he surreptitiously made a tape recording of his arrest, transportation, and booking. Gouin v. Gouin, No. CIV. A.2001-10890-RBC, 249 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D. Mass. 2003). [N/R]
     311:173 Release of personnel files of undercover officers to criminal defense counsel, which was done without court order, violated their constitutionally protected privacy rights, risking the lives of the officers and their families, in light of home addresses and other personal information contained in files; officers entitled to damages and injunctive relief. Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, #96-3853, (6th Cir. 1998), reh. en banc denied, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 10896.