The legal standard for excessive use of force by police officers under the New Jersey state Constitution is the same as the objective reasonableness standard under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Court rejects claims by a wife and her sister that officers, in arresting them following the wife's fight with her husband's girlfriend, used excessive force against them. The court found that the wife failed to comply with an officer's request to surrender a cell phone and enter a police vehicle voluntarily and the sister also refused to obey instructions from an officer, justifying the amount of force used. Norcross v. Town of Hammonton, Civil No. 04-2536, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9067 (D.N.J.).
     The defense of qualified immunity available to officers in federal civil rights lawsuits filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 does not apply to claims arising out of the same incident asserted in a California state law civil rights lawsuit filed under Cal. Civil Code Sec. 52.1 for interference with statutory or constitutional rights. The case involved claims that deputies acted improperly in connection with the plaintiffs' detention, the search and seizure of their car, and the subsequent search of their home. While the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity on a federal civil rights claim because certain actions, even if unlawful, were "reasonable mistakes," an intermediate California appeals court ruled that the defense of qualified immunity does not apply as to the California state civil rights claim, requiring further proceedings. Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, No. B186764, 2007 Cal. App. Lexis 1267 (Cal. App.).
     The constitutional right against unreasonable seizure under the Pennsylvania state Constitution does not provide an arrestee with any greater protect than is provided by the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment, and there is no right, under state law, to recover money damages for an alleged violation of this state constitutional right, so that city and its officers were entitled to summary judgment in arrestee's lawsuit asserting state constitutional claims arising from his arrest. Jones v. City of Philadelphia, 890 A.2d 1188 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). [N/R]
     Motorist' claim against the State of New York for state and federal constitutional violations concerning two stops during which his car and person were searched were time barred when not filed within the two-year jurisdictional time limit of the New York Court of Claims. McKinney's Court of Claims Act, Sec. 10, sub. 3. The state was immune from these constitutional claims when not filed within two years, rather than the otherwise applicable New York statute of limitations of three years for federal constitutional claims or six years for state constitutional claims. Lyles v. State, 3 N.Y.3d 396, 820 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
     Washington state homeowner was not entitled, under state constitutional provisions concerning the taking of property and eminent domain, to compensation for alleged damage to her residence as a result of the execution of a search warrant there by police. Eggleston v. Pierce County, No. 71296-4, 64 P.3d 618 (Wash. 2003). [N/R]
    Tying up an arrestee to a metal pole in a deserted parking lot and leaving him there for officers from another jurisdiction to pick up on outstanding arrest warrants violated his due process rights under Maryland state constitution. Officers were entitled to qualified immunity on federal due process claim, but appeals court warns that officers are "now on notice" that such "Keystone Kop" activity in the future would "implicate federal due process guarantees." Robles v. Prince George's County, Maryland, #01-1662, 01-1728, 302 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Dec]
     State police officers were individually entitled to assert a sovereign immunity defense against arrestee's Connecticut state constitutional claims concerning his arrest and the search of his home, even though he claimed that the officers acted in a manner that was "wanton, reckless or malicious." Martin v. Brady, No. 20808, 780 A.2d 961 (Conn. App. 2001). [2002 LR Feb]
     338:30 New York court rules that arrestee whose conviction was overturned on the basis of a defective affidavit for search warrant was not entitled to pursue a state constitutional claim for unreasonable search and seizure; exclusion of the evidence was an adequate remedy when the arrestee was prosecuted, so no damage remedy was required. Martinez v. City of Schenectady, 714 N.Y.S.2d 572 (A.D. 2000).
     {N/R} Violations of the California state constitution are not "self executing" and do not create a right to sue for damages. Degrassi v. Cook, #B136407, 00 C.D.O.S. 9495, 2000 Cal. App. Lexis 912.
     316:63 Since defendant state of New York admitted that each of the plaintiffs was stopped by officers solely on the basis of race, state had the burden of proving that this was "necessary to promote a compelling state interest." Brown v. State of New York, 681 N.Y.S. 2d 170 (A.D. 1998). 308:126 Connecticut Supreme Court decision indicates important continuing trend of state courts recognizing "Bivens"- like remedy against officers under state constitutions. Binette v. Sabo, 244 Conn 23, 710 A.2d 688, 1998 WL 122424 (March 10, 1998). Editor's Note: Some of the other decisions adopting similar Bivens- like remedies for violations of state constitutional provisions include Brown v. State, 89 N.Y.2d 172, 674 N.E.2d 1129, 652 N.Y.S.2d 223 (1996), (damage action for violations of N.Y. constitutional provisions concerning search and seizure and equal protection); Bott v. DeLand, 922 P.2d 732 (Utah 1996), (damage action for violation of constitutional rights by prison officials); Newell v. Elgin, 34 Ill. App. 3d 719, 340 N.E.2d 344 (1976), (damage action for illegal search and seizure); Widgeon v. Eastern Shore Hospital Center, 300 Md. 520, 479 A.2d 921 (1984), (claims for violation of search and seizure and due process protections); Gay Law Students Assn. v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., 24 Cal. 3d 458, 595 P.2d 592, 156 Cal. Rptr. 14 (1979), (damage action for violation of equal protection); Moresi v. Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries, 567 So.2d 1081 (La. 1990), (claims for illegal search and seizure); Strauss v. State, 131 N.J. Super. 571, 330 A.2d 646 (1974), (damages action for due process violation).
     311:174 No right to pursue state due process claims under New York law against city police officers when claim for violation of federal due process rights provided available remedy. Wahad v. F.B.I., 994 F.Supp. 237 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). Editor's Note " See also Remley v. State, 174 Misc. 2d 523, 665 N.Y.S.2d 1005 (Ct. Cl. 1997), refusing to imply a private right of action for violation of the state Due Process Clause under the Brown analysis because the plaintiff had alternative remedies under state tort law.
     {N/R} Search and seizure provision of Missouri state constitution could not be the basis for a claim for money damages by a private individual in the absence of any state legislation authorizing such lawsuits. Moody v. Hicks, 956 S.W.2d 398 (Mo. App. 1997).