Matthew Tarabochia v. Mickey Adkins

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding a search unconstitutional in part because the fisheries laws that the officers were purportedly enforcing when they stopped an individual’s car on the highway did not limit the scope of searches that could be performed under that authority
• “[E]ven if a party fails to raise an issue in the district court, we generally will not deem the issue waived if the district court actually considered it.”
• “[i]n the absence of binding precedent clearly establishing the constitutional right, we look to whatever decisional law is available including decisions of state courts, other circuits, and district courts”
• “[i]n the absence of binding precedent clearly establishing the constitutional right, we look to whatever decisional law is available including decisions of state courts, other circuits, and district courts”
• “[E]ven if a party fails to raise an issue in the district court, we generally will not deem the issue waived if the district court actually considered it.”
• “Because the actionable incident . . . constitutes a ‘seizure’ of ‘persons’ under the Fourth Amendment, it is properly analyzed exclusively under this constitutional provision and not under the broader concept of substantive due process.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).