United States v Paetsch

Paetsch appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The panel, with one judge concurring in result, affirmed. The majority held that police acted reasonably in barricading 20 cars at an intersection where a GPS tracker on money stolen in an armed bank robbery as the need to find an armed bank robbery was grave, the barricade advanced the interest in that Paetsch was among the drivers and was arrested and the barricade was a reasonable option less dangerous than attempting a high speed chase and the detention of the 29 people in the cars was not such a  severe intrusion on their liberty to outweigh the need to find and arrest Paetsch because it lasted roughly the time estimated for a scanner to arrive, the officers developed individualized suspicion of Paetsch based on his nervousness and failure to obey orders and the additional delays were not foreseeable at the time barricade began. The concurrence in result argued that there was no individualized suspicion of Paetsch until the scanner and a secondary search located the money as evidenced by the removal and handcuffing of all single occupants of cars. However, because any delay was the result of negligence, the exclusionary rule would inappropriate here for lack of culpable conduct.

Nakkhumpun v Taylor

Nakkhumpun field a class action suit against Taylor and other officers alleging securities fraud. The dsit4rct court dismissed the claims and denied a motion to amend as futile. The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. It held that claims based on statements as to why a proposed deal fell through should not have been dismissed because the statements by Taylor falsely represented the deal fell through because of financing problems rather than a lower valuation of the assets; that the statements supported the inference of intent to deceive as the other party to the deal believed the value was lower, Taylor knew this and would have recognized the risk of deception if correct information was not shared; and it was foreseeable that when the lower valuation finally became known, the company’s stock price would fall. The reversal was limited to Taylor and the dismissal as to the other defendants was affirmed.  The panela also affirmed the dismissal of the claims based on statements concerning the financial condition of the company because the statements were either sincerely held opinion, factually accurate or if misleading there was a lack of proof of intent to deceive.

United States v Jantran, Inc.

The government sued Jantran seeking reimbursement for repairs to a lock on a river damaged by a boat owned by Jantran. The district court ruled 33 USC 409 did not authorize in personam claims against Jantran and dismissed. The panel affirmed. It held that under the plain language of 409 and there remedies section 412, the government is limited to an in rem proceeding against the boat which is consistent with maritime law generally. It rejected the government’s argument that because the United States Supreme Court allowed in personam suits under 33 USC 408 that similar suits should be allowed under 409 adopting the reasoning of the 5th Circuit that 408 imposes a duty on boat owners while 409 does not. It also held that an implied action should not be recognized as the statute sets out a remedy and there is no indication in the text that Congress intended to allow implied suits here.