Last week at the Tenth Circuit:
United States v. Mathews, the Tenth Circuit held that, under the totality of
circumstances, ATF investigators reasonably searched Mr. Mathews’s
historical GPS data (collected from his ankle monitor while he was under a state community
supervision order). This was a legal question that the district court
appropriately resolved without an evidentiary hearing. Read this case for a fuller understanding of the law regarding warrantless searches involving people on state parole/probation.
Mathews also reminded
us that “Daubert does not mandate an
evidentiary hearing.” And that if we want to preserve a challenge to the
reliability of an expert’s opinions, conclusions, and methodologies, we must do
more than simply challenge the expert’s credentials. Specificity in making Daubert objections is key to appellate
Fourteenth Amendment/Due Process
In case you didn't know, "[e]xposing a person's naked body involuntarily is a severe invasion of personal privacy" implicating due-process concerns. Consequently, the district court properly denied qualified immunity to six deputy sheriffs who walked a man in their custody through the public area of a hospital completely unclothed but for a pair of orange mittens. So said the Tenth Circuit in Colbruno v. Kessler, a § 1983 case.