The Supreme Court recently decided Olivier v. City of Brandon, holding that a plaintiff with a prior conviction under a law may still bring a Section 1983 suit seeking purely prospective relief against that law, and that such a suit is not barred if the plaintiff lacked access to federal habeas relief.

​

​

​

​

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently decided United States v. Wilson, a case emphasizing that a search warrant affidavit must establish probable cause specifically tied to the place to be searched, and that assumptions or mere proximity alone are insufficient to justify a search.

​

​

​

​

​

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently released a ruling for Burke v. Pitts, a case that arose after a response to a domestic disturbance call ended with multiple Taser discharges and a fatal shooting within four minutes of officer arrival.1 The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for the officers, holding that, under clearly established law, the officers’ use of force was objectively unreasonable.

​​​

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently released an opinion in United  States v. Scott, a case highlights reasonable expectations of privacy in the context of public restrooms and constructive possession of a firearm.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

The Supreme Court of the United States recently decided Zorn v. Linton, holding that, because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit failed to identify a case where an officer using a routine wristlock on a protester after issuing a verbal warning, without more, was held to have violated the Constitution, Sergeant Jacob Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity

​

​

​

​

The Eleventh Circuit held that prison officials generally may not conduct strip searches of civilian visitors without reasonable suspicion that the visitor is concealing contraband. The court also held that qualified immunity did not protect the officers because the constitutional violation was sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would have understood the conduct was unlawful.

​

​​​​

​​

​