Page 33 - Texas police Association Peace Officer Guide 2017

supervision and inspection.” This is because, in Texas as elsewhere, “the owner of a closely
regulated industry, such as that involving liquor, is considered to have a reduced
expectation of privacy in the premises.” (“By accepting a license or permit, the holder
consents to . . . a peace officer entering the licensed premises at any time to conduct an
investigation or inspect the premises for the purpose of performing any duty imposed by
this code.”). Considering this reduced expectation of privacy, [the Bar] has not pointed to
evidence showing a triable issue whether the City conducted inspections that were unjustified by
valid regulatory motives or otherwise unreasonable. Thus, the district court properly granted
summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claims.

The Due Process Clause protects against arbitrary government action. Executive action violates
the clause’s substantive aspect only if it “shocks the conscience.” This is an “extremely high”
standard “requiring stunning evidence of arbitrariness and caprice that extends beyond mere
violations of state law, even violations resulting from bad faith to something more egregious and
more extreme.” The bar’s cited evidence, at best, shows that the City aggressively enforced
valid regulations and responded to citizen complaints, and used its leverage to encourage The
bar’s landlord to terminate the bar’s lease after a long string of problems—including a fatal
shooting at the bar. This is not conscience-shocking conduct that violates substantive due
process.

Even if there were a genuine issue of material fact, the claims all target the City and its officers
in their official capacities. There is no vicarious municipal liability under § 1983; rather,
plaintiffs “must prove that ‘action pursuant to official municipal policy’ caused their injury.”

th
THREE LEGGED MONKEY, L.P., v. CITY OF EL PASO, et. al., No. 15-50946, 5 Cir. June
th
10 , 2016.
***********************************************************************

th
SEARCH & SEIZURE – REASONABLE SUSPICION (10 Cir. holds that the fact that a
citizen [license plate] is out-of-State is not a proper basis to support reasonable suspicion for
detention and search.)

This case asks us to determine whether, under the totality of circumstances, Kansas Highway
Patrol Officers (the “Officers”) had reasonable suspicion to detain and search the vehicle of
Vasquez. In particular, this case presents the question of what weight to afford the state
citizenship of a motorist in determining the validity of a search. Vasquez alleges that after
stopping him for a traffic violation, the Officers detained him and searched his car without
reasonable suspicion. As justification, the Officers assert, among other indicators detailed herein,
Vasquez was a citizen of Colorado, driving alone on Interstate 70 from Colorado through
Kansas, in the middle of the night, in a recently purchased, older-model car.

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 28 2017 Edition