Legal Update

As we say at DLG, traffic stops are the bread and butter of police work and often lead to great cases when we “look beyond the plate”. Of course, the courts have established “rules of engagement” that place restrictions on just how long that extra look can last. As the Supreme Court noted in Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 1609 (2015), “a traffic

As we head into another election cycle and continue to deal with homelessness and panhandling concerns in our respective jurisdictions, I thought this recent case, Evans vs Sandy City[1], out of the 10th Circuit may provide some guidance on First Amendment concerns. Clearly, officers must take a citizen’s First Amendment liberties into account when planning a police response to a planned demonstration as well

On a number of occasions, we have reviewed cases where the court was determining the moment at which an arrest took place. As we know, our interactions with citizens run on a spectrum from a typical voluntary citizen contact through an Investigative Detention to a full- blown arrest. At each step in the process, as the citizen’s liberty is further restricted, officers are required

Today, we will look at a recent Section 1983 lawsuit[1] against members of the Kansas City, Missouri Tactical Team and their use of a Flash/Sound Diversionary Device. The 8th Circuit was one of the increasingly few circuit courts that had not ruled on the use of these devices, so for those of you working in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South