Supreme Court might let immigrants (detained after September 11, 2001) sue US Officials

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to decide whether former Attorney General John Ashcroft and other onetime government officials have immunity in suits by immigrants who say they were rounded up and illegally detained after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The court agreed to hear three consolidated cases brought by mostly Muslim immigrants who were in the country illegally. . . .article here (via abajournal.)

Man says undercover officers beat him unconscious: Civil suit against police

A 23-year-old man says he was tackled and choked unconscious by undercover officers who were searching for a fugitive in Grand Rapids.

Article here (via mlive). 

James King claimed he thought he was being mugged when a plainclothes Grand Rapids Police detective and FBI special agent asked for his identification and held him against an unmarked SUV on July 18, 2014. He said didn't know the men were law enforcement.

King, who wasn't the man police were seeking, says he tried to run but was assaulted during a chaotic, confusing scene described in a lawsuit filed Monday, April 4, in U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids. King is represented by attorney Patrick Jaicomo, of the firm Miller Johnson.

King, who was charged in the earlier incident and found not guilty, was previously a GVSU student.

On a side note: this case brings up the legality of whether police can be videotaped during the course of their jobs. One of the officers allegedly involved in Mr. King's arrest asked that bystanders delete any video they may have captured with their cell phones.

This article (from 2012) says that "Slowly but surely the courts are recognizing that recording on-duty police is a protected First Amendment activity. But in the meantime, police around the country continue to intimidate and arrest citizens for doing just that. So if you're an aspiring cop watcher you must be uniquely prepared to deal with hostile cops." Michigan does allow recording of police - this doesn't mean that it will make the police who are being recorded very friendly to the subjects who are doing the recording. Or that it will prevent any charges from being filed - even in connection with the recording, such as disturbing the peace, obstruction of officers, etc.

Motorist sues over cavity searches

Police detained David Eckert for not making a complete stop while exiting a Walmart parking lot on Jan. 2, and officers suspected him of concealing drugs because he "appeared to be clenching his buttocks," attorney Shannon Kennedy told KOB-TV, which reviewed medical records, police reports and the federal lawsuit.

"This is like something out of a science fiction film — anal probing by government officials and public employees," Kennedy said.

article here. 

I'd say this definitely qualifies as an unreasonable search, and a situation where a warrant should not have been granted. 

Could victims of GRPS teacher's sex abuse be able to sue the school district?

The answer: yes, they could sue the school district under Title IX. But whether they'd succeed is another question. Article here. 
 From the article:

Nelson Miller, associate dean and professor at Cooley Law School's Grand Rapids campus, said a successful civil case against GRPS would have to meet a high standard. He said the deliberate-indifference standard is one half of the Title IX standard, with actual notice being the other part.

"The challenge is that the school district would have had to know of the conduct of that teacher plus show deliberate indifference to it," he said. "If the school takes appropriate action on actual notice, there is no liability."