CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Moss

Defendant Robert Moss, charged with methamphetamine offenses, moved to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his residence. He claimed the search warrant was based on evidence from illegal trash searches, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. Officer Bryan Harris conducted multiple trash searches after an anonymous tip, finding items associated with methamphetamine manufacturing. The court examined the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and the principles established in *Katz v. United States* and *California v. Greenwood* regarding the expectation of privacy in discarded trash. The motion was denied, as the court ruled that individuals lose any reasonable expectation of privacy in trash once it is placed for collection at the designated time, regardless of its location within the curtilage.

Fourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureMotion to SuppressTrash SearchExpectation of PrivacyCurtilageAbandoned PropertyCriminal ProcedureMethamphetamineDrug Offenses
References
3
Case No. 14-08-00037-CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2009

Oluwole Ajayi Gabriel v. State

A jury found appellant OLUWOLE AJAYI GABRIEL guilty of theft of $200,000.00 or more, and the trial court assessed punishment at forty-five years confinement. Appellant raised four issues on appeal, contending errors in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of garbage and a private postal box, and alleging the search warrant for his residence and vehicles lacked probable cause. He also challenged the sufficiency of evidence for venue. The appellate court found no error, affirming the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no expectation of privacy in trash left for collection, that the postal box search was valid due to agency consent, and that the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The court also found sufficient evidence to support venue in Fort Bend County.

theftFourth Amendmentmotion to suppresswarrantless searchprobable causesearch warrantvenuecredit card fraudprivate postal boxgarbage search
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Marcario

A child protective services worker from the Suffolk County Department of Social Services sought a court order under Family Court Act section 1034 to search premises believed to house an abused child. The application stemmed from a hotline report alleging abuse by Joseph Marcario, which he and his wife denied, refusing to cooperate with the investigation. The court denied the application, finding the supporting affidavit, based on double hearsay from an unnamed and unreliable informant, lacked the probable cause required for a search warrant under the CPL and Fourth Amendment. The court emphasized the importance of due process for alleged perpetrators and also criticized the over 90-day delay in filing the application after the initial report.

Child Protective ServicesFamily Court ActSearch Warrant ApplicationProbable CauseHearsay EvidenceAguilar TestDue ProcessFourth AmendmentChild Abuse InvestigationSuffolk County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2011

Augustin v. Jablonsky

Defendants moved to decertify the class regarding special damages, arguing that such claims are too individualized. Plaintiffs opposed, contending that 'garden-variety emotional distress' damages should be determined class-wide. The Court previously awarded general damages of $500 per strip search for the injury to human dignity. However, it ruled that claims for emotional distress damages beyond this general award are inherently individualized and require separate proof, thus granting the defendants' motion to not extend class certification to special damages. The Court also addressed pre- and post-judgment interest and the distribution of the general damages award.

Class ActionStrip SearchEmotional DistressGeneral DamagesSpecial DamagesDecertificationRule 23(b)(3)Constitutional ViolationCivil RightsHuman Dignity
References
48
Case No. 06-02-00202-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2003

Jessie Lane Hitchcock v. State

Jessie Lane Hitchcock appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing that law enforcement officials violated his constitutional and statutory rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Officers detected marihuana smoke and odor from a parked car, leading to a pat-down search of Hitchcock after one occupant fled. During the search, officers found a rock-like substance believed to be crack cocaine in Hitchcock's pocket. The court considered whether the search was justified under exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, specifically examining initial detention, Terry search, plain feel exception, inevitable discovery, and exigent circumstances. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the strong odor of marihuana provided probable cause for the search of Hitchcock's person.

Search and SeizureFourth AmendmentTexas ConstitutionMotion to SuppressProbable CauseWarrantless SearchExigent CircumstancesInvestigative DetentionTerry StopPlain Feel Exception
References
71
Case No. 12 Civ. 8456
Regular Panel Decision

Residents for Sane Trash Solutions, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

Plaintiffs, including Residents for Sane Trash Solutions, Inc. and Micah Z. Kellner, challenged the construction of the 91st Street Marine Transfer Station (MTS) in New York City. They alleged that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) improperly issued a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit by failing to conduct an adequate environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), consider alternatives, or sufficiently address impacts after Superstorm Sandy. Additionally, Plaintiffs claimed the City of New York and its Department of Sanitation denied them equal protection, and Asphalt Green Inc. alleged breach of contract, trespass, and private nuisance. The District Court granted summary judgment to the Defendants, affirming that the Corps’ permit issuance was rational, its environmental review was adequate, and its considerations of alternatives, mitigation, and post-Sandy impacts were sufficient. All of Plaintiffs' claims, including constitutional and state law claims, were dismissed with prejudice.

Environmental LawClean Water Act (CWA)National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)Waste ManagementMarine Transfer StationJudicial ReviewAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Summary JudgmentFlood RiskSuperstorm Sandy
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Postall

This case addresses a motion to suppress property seized from the employment locker of a United States Postal Service police officer, who was indicted for murder. The central issue revolves around the reasonableness of a warrantless search of a public employee's locker and the applicability of Fourth Amendment and New York constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court found no probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or valid consent to justify the search. It ruled that administrative regulations cannot override constitutional rights and that the Postal Inspector's broad interpretation of search authority was insufficient. Consequently, the search was deemed unreasonable under both Federal and State law, leading to the suppression of the seized property.

Warrantless SearchExpectation of PrivacyPublic Employee LockerFourth AmendmentNew York ConstitutionSearch and SeizureMotion to SuppressUnited States Postal ServicePolice Officer MisconductWorkplace Search
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell v. Fernandez

Plaintiff Campbell, a construction worker, was arrested and strip-searched in a Poughkeepsie mini-mart during a drug raid by officers including David Fernandez and Lawrence Bartolotti. During the search, which occurred in a public area of the store, plaintiff was allegedly subjected to racial taunts and exposed, leading to the discovery of a small bag of marijuana. He later pleaded guilty to a violation. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, determining that while there was probable cause for the initial search, the reasonableness of the strip search in a public setting and the officers' qualified immunity remain disputed issues of fact for a jury. Additionally, a claim against the City of Poughkeepsie Police Department concerning an alleged unconstitutional strip search policy will also proceed to trial.

Fourth AmendmentStrip SearchProbable CauseQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentMunicipal LiabilityPolice MisconductRacial EpithetsUnreasonable SearchCriminal Procedure Law
References
8
Case No. B371-2013, B372-2013
Regular Panel Decision

People v. English

The defendant was arrested for attempted kidnapping and compelling a 14-year-old to engage in prostitution. Incident to the arrest, an iPhone was seized and searched under warrant B371-2013, and an apartment was searched under warrant B372-2013. The defendant moved to controvert both search warrants. The court denied the motion regarding B371-2013, finding the search of the cell phone's contents did not exceed the warrant's scope given the flexibility afforded in digital searches and the plain view doctrine for other incriminating evidence. However, the court granted in part the motion regarding B372-2013, ruling that the warrant for the apartment's electronic devices lacked the necessary specificity under the Fourth Amendment, leading to the suppression of evidence seized from those devices. Evidence seized under the valid portions of B372-2013 (non-electronic items like a holster and ammunition) was deemed admissible.

Search warrantFourth AmendmentCell phone searchElectronic device searchParticularity requirementProbable causeSuppression of evidencePlain view doctrineDigital forensicsAttempted kidnapping
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Tarazon-Silva

The defendants, Manuel Jose Tarazon-Silva and Ricardo Belkotosky-Gutierrez, filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence. The Court ruled that law enforcement agents lacked reasonable suspicion for the initial Terry stops of the defendants' vehicles, thus suppressing all evidence derived from those stops, including identities, statements, vehicle searches, and key matching. However, for the subsequent searches of the Pelhem residence, Bay City Place residence, and Rojas Drive warehouse, the Court found the "good faith" exception inapplicable due to an AUSA's involvement in preparing the warrant affidavit. Despite this, after excising the tainted information, the Court determined that the affidavits for these searches still contained sufficient probable cause, primarily supported by a reliable confidential informant, agent surveillance, and a narcotics-sniffing canine's alert at the Pelhem residence's dryer vent, which was not considered a search as it occurred outside the curtilage. Therefore, the defendants' motion to suppress was partially granted for the vehicle stops but denied for the residence and warehouse searches.

Motion to SuppressFourth AmendmentReasonable SuspicionProbable CauseExclusionary RuleGood Faith ExceptionTerry StopDrug EnforcementCanine SniffCurtilage
References
56
Showing 1-10 of 242 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational