No. 23-530

Terrence R. Yoast v. Pottstown Borough, Pennsylvania, et al.

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2023-11-17
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: excessive-bail false-arrest false-imprisonment fourth-amendment heck-doctrine malicious-prosecution probable-cause qualified-immunity section-1983 warrantless-arrest warrantless-entry
Latest Conference: 2024-01-19
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Under the Fourth Amendment's in-presence requirement, a police officer who conducts a warrantless arrest on a person accused of a misdemeanor, or lesser offense, must be present and personally visual to the alleged crime to have the probable cause necessary to effectuate a lawful seizure.

2. Heck v. Humphrey does not bar § 1983 claims for false arrest, false imprisonment or excessive bail, which are unrelated to an outstanding conviction and does not preclude malicious prosecution claims arising from charges that terminated favorably, within the context of a mixed verdict.

3. It is well-established that police officers who warrantlessly enter into a private building-structure, in the absence of consent or exigency, violate the Fourth Amendment and do not enjoy qualified immunity.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Fourth-Amendment-in-presence-requirement

Docket Entries

2024-01-22
Petition DENIED.
2024-01-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/19/2024.
2023-12-14
Brief of respondents Pottstown Borough, Pennsylvania, et al. in opposition filed.
2023-11-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 18, 2023)

Attorneys

Pottstown Borough, et al.
Sheryl L. BrownSiana Law LLP, Respondent
Terrence R. Yoast
Terrence R. Yoast — Petitioner