The Issues with watching the video before writing a Use of Force Report. Over the past few weeks, I have seen more and more articles regarding the policy of allowing police officers to view video of an incident before writing their use of force report, which is incredibly concerning. It appears that individuals across the country have decided to be reactionary to “win” over the […]
What Happened to the Perception of the Officer? Continue Reading
The Process Benefits the Agency and the Community. Public Safety accreditation is defined as the voluntary compliance with contemporary, internationally recognized standards for operation and administration. These professionally recognized and established standards are referred to as the “best practices” in public safety. Adherence to these standards not only benefit the agency and the manner in which they deliver services; adherence to these standards are
The Benefits of the Public Safety Accreditation Process Continue Reading
In more recent times, groups of individuals, claiming to be “First Amendment Auditors,” have been challenging police and gaining media exposure by filming the inside of various public spaces. As a result of this new phenomenon, many agencies are evaluating how to respond to these so-called “auditors.” Many of these encounters do not escalate, however, there are some encounters that have become challenging for law enforcement.
First Amendment “Audits” and the Civilian Right to Film Law Enforcement (Part 2) Continue Reading
What is it, What are the Implications and are there Restrictions? In more recent times, groups of individuals, claiming to be “First Amendment Auditors,” have been challenging police and gaining media exposure by filming the inside of various public spaces. As a result of this new phenomenon, many agencies are evaluating how to respond to these so-called “auditors.” Many of these encounters do not escalate, however,
First Amendment “Audits” and the Civilian Right to Film Law Enforcement (Part 1) Continue Reading
Coming to us from the First Circuit, the facts of this case surround harassment, a knock and talk, and of course, the Fourth Amendment. The major case used in the court’s argument today is Florida v. Jardines. Decided in 2013, the Supreme Court recognized that the yard of a home is protected under the Fourth Amendment to the same degree as the interior of the
You Shall Not Pass: Knock & Talks, Curtilage and the Fourth Amendment Continue Reading
Before we get into our case, let’s review the Supreme Court’s two objective tests for identifying a Fourth Amendment search. These two tests include whether police: (1) “physically intrud[es] on a constitutionally protected area” (under United States v. Jones); or (2) violate a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy” (under Katz v. United States). These are different from a seizure, which is legally defined as
It’s All in the Hips: A Suspect’s Suspicious Movements Lead to A Reasonable Frisk Continue Reading
Today our case handles a situation involving a protective order and an impoundment. Because our case took place in the Tenth Circuit, there are some pretextual guidelines to consider when it comes to vehicle impoundment: Whether the car is on private or public property; Whether the property owner has been consulted; Whether an alternative to impoundment exists, especially the availability of someone else to drive
Surviving a pandemic has caused a shift in how we get the things our families need, meaning more people buy things online and get them delivered versus going out to shop for them. Today’s case out of the Fourth Circuit highlights suspicious packages and the reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to handling shipments. When it comes to shipments, the reasonable expectation of
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy and Packages Continue Reading
United States v. Brown brings us to the Ninth Circuit. It also highlights two court cases, Terry v. Ohio and Sibron v. New York. The first case, Terry v. Ohio, is a Supreme Court case that held a police officer correctly limited his protective search to, “what was minimally necessary to learn whether the men were armed and to disarm them once he discovered weapons.” The officer had reasonable suspicion that three men were
A Frisk Too Far: Limited Search Necessary Before Performing a Full Search Continue Reading
In the past we have reviewed cases with pole cameras and their use in modern day policing. Today’s case, United States v. Tuggle, examines how the length of time that one uses a device to perform surveillance to investigate someone can make the case a little trickier. The Supreme Court has argued this point before, specifically in United States v. Jones stating that “short-term
Prolonged Pole Camera Surveillance Continue Reading