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. 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. 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
Nov 02, 2009

In Re Application of Madison

The petitioners, including Elliot and Elena Madison, Jennifer Sobolewski, Michael Wallsehlaeger, James and Irina Weiss, and Maik Hasenbank, initiated an action under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) seeking the return of property seized from their residence in Queens, New York, or the appointment of a special master. The property was seized under search warrants related to an ongoing investigation into potential violations of federal anti-rioting laws. Petitioners challenged the search and seizure on grounds of lacking particularity, overbreadth, and asserting protections under the First Amendment, attorney-client privilege, and social worker privilege. Presiding District Judge Dora L. Irizarry denied all motions, finding the warrants sufficiently particular and the seizures not to be in flagrant disregard of their terms. The court also determined that petitioners failed to make a substantial showing for any claimed First Amendment or privilege protections, subsequently lifting the Temporary Restraining Order and directing the government to expedite the review and return of non-evidentiary items.

Rule 41(g)Search and SeizureFourth AmendmentFirst AmendmentAttorney-Client PrivilegeSocial Worker PrivilegeSpecial MasterAnti-Rioting StatuteProbable CauseWarrant Particularity
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bressor v. Marriott Corp.

Claimant, a revenue reporting clerk, developed seizures linked to work-related stress, initially in January 1990 and again in January 1995 after increased duties. He filed a workers' compensation claim in May 1995. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the claim untimely, ruling the accident occurred in January 1990. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the January 1995 recurrence due to new stress constituted a separate, timely accident. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings to determine if the seizure disorder actually constituted an accident and its causal relationship to the job stress.

seizure disorderepilepsywork-related stresstimeliness of claimstatute of limitationsoccupational accidentBoard decisionappellate reviewremittalcausal relationship
References
2
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

LM Business Associates, Inc. v. State

Defendant appealed a Court of Claims judgment that found them liable to claimants for conversion and negligent misrepresentation. The case stemmed from the seizure of claimants' computers during a fraud investigation into affiliated businesses, which resulted in the owner's conviction, though claimants were never charged. The seized computers, vital for claimants' businesses, were returned over two years later. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that defendant's seizure and retention of the computers were authorized by a valid search warrant, thus not constituting conversion. It further ruled that no 'privity-like relationship' existed between investigators and claimants to support a negligent misrepresentation claim. Lastly, the court dismissed the constitutional tort claim, noting claimants had adequate alternative remedies in other forums.

ConversionNegligent MisrepresentationSearch WarrantSeizure of PropertyState LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstitutional TortFraud InvestigationWorkers' Compensation LawCourt of Claims
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. City of Mount Vernon, Mount Vernon Police Dept.

This case involved plaintiffs Joseph and Avis Lewis suing the Mount Vernon Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment violations due to an unreasonable search and seizure. Police executed a 'no-knock' search warrant at the Lewis' first-floor apartment, based on erroneous information linking it to a drug trafficking suspect, Charles Bowen, who actually resided on the second floor. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The court granted the motion, determining that the officers' reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable, despite the mistaken information. The court also found the execution of the warrant, including the unannounced entry and temporary detention of occupants, to be reasonable under the circumstances. Consequently, the federal claims were dismissed, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1983 ClaimFourth Amendment RightsSearch and SeizureQualified Immunity DefenseSummary Judgment MotionPolice Warrant ExecutionNo-Knock EntryProbable Cause DeterminationMistaken IdentityDrug Trafficking Investigation
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ostensen v. Suffolk County

Nancy Ostensen initiated an action against Suffolk County, its Police Department, Officer Thomas Gallagher, and private individuals Patricia Capucci and Rosemary Kneeht, asserting constitutional violations under Section 1983 and various New York state law claims. The Plaintiff alleged unreasonable search and seizure, and due process violations stemming from an incident where the private defendants entered a residence where Ostensen lived, with Officer Gallagher's alleged non-intervention. The County Defendants sought summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment, determining there was no evidence of conspiracy between the state and private actors, that Ostensen lacked a possessory interest in the property for an unreasonable seizure claim, and that Officer Gallagher was shielded by qualified immunity as his actions were objectively reasonable. Consequently, all federal claims were dismissed, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1983Fourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentUnreasonable Search and SeizureDue ProcessQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentState ActionConspiracyMunicipal Liability
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Angelo-Fenton v. Town of Carmel

Plaintiff Joann D’Angelo-Fenton brought an action against the Town of Carmel, its Police Department, several officers (Town Defendants), and The Journal News, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, alongside various state law claims including false arrest, unlawful search and seizure, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and defamation. The suit stemmed from an automobile accident where D'Angelo-Fenton was accused of driving while intoxicated, leading to her arrest, blood sample seizure, and a newspaper article reporting the incident. The court converted defendants' motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, ultimately finding that probable cause justified D'Angelo-Fenton's arrest and blood test. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing all federal and most state law claims with prejudice, and the defamation claims without prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Civil Rights42 U.S.C. § 198342 U.S.C. § 1985False ArrestUnlawful Search and SeizureMalicious ProsecutionSummary JudgmentProbable CauseDriving While Intoxicated (DWI)Defamation
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarado v. City of New York

Plaintiff Eris Alvarado filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against parole officers Eunice Green, Thomas Silagi, and Arcadio Almenas, alleging various constitutional violations, including unlawful search and seizure, false arrest, malicious prosecution, malicious abuse of process, and denial of due process. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing the claims related to search, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and malicious abuse of process, finding the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that probable cause for arrest existed based on a robbery indictment. However, the court denied summary judgment on the denial of due process claim, citing a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Alvarado knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a preliminary parole revocation hearing, thus precluding dismissal based on qualified immunity for this specific claim.

Parole ViolationDue ProcessSummary JudgmentQualified ImmunityFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionSearch and Seizure42 U.S.C. § 1983Parole OfficersWaiver of Rights
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 298 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