On March 29, 2019 the Connecticut Supreme Court officially released the opinion in the matter of the State of Connecticut v. Robert John Purcell (the full opinion can be found here SC19980 ). The Connecticut Supreme Court decided whether the standard of Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (stating that after a defendant has been advised of his/her Miranda rights, “the police […]
Sergeant Joe Friday in the show Dragnet may have set the standards in 1950’s with his alleged catch phrase “just the facts, ma’am.” In 1986 the Supreme Court set a standard for officers with respect to arrest warrant affidavits. The standard set by SCOTUS in Malley v Briggs has remained with us for over 30 years and the case is still often cited to
“Just the Facts, Ma’am…” Continue Reading
Several months ago, a case came out of the 1st Circuit involving the arrest and search of Marquis Aiken at a hotel room in Maine. An issue arose from that case questioning whether Aiken, a non-registered guest in the motel room, was entitled to the same reasonable expectation of privacy as the registered guest. The 1st Circuit determined that, for a number of reasons,
How Far Can a Terry Stop Reach? Continue Reading
Before we get into our current case, let’s take a look back at Graham v Connor, as the Graham factors will come into play in Glasscox v. City of Argo. In Graham, the plaintiff (Graham) was suffering from a diabetic reaction but police believed he may have been involved in suspicious behavior at a drug store. During the ensuing investigative detention, officers used force
In 2018, a case came out of the 7th Circuit[1] involving a wrongful death lawsuit filed against two Neenah police officers who shot and killed Michael Funk, an armed hostage, during a 2015 armed standoff. Neenah police officers Craig Hoffer and Robert Ross shot Funk after he escaped Eagle Nation Cycles where he and two others were being held hostage by gunman Brian Flatoff.
Hostage Shot During Armed Standoff – Liable? Continue Reading
The United States Supreme Court has an ambitious agenda on law enforcement topics for 2018. While some of the cases waiting to be decided may assist law enforcement when conducting criminal investigations, others may pose challenges to their efforts if decided the wrong way. The topics to be decided include: Whether an expectation of privacy exists when the sole occupant of a rental car
SCOTUS 2018: A Glimpse on the Cases That Will Affect Law Enforcement Continue Reading
On March 6, 2017, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued an interesting concurring opinion in Perez vs. Florida[1]. In her opinion, the Justice stated that if First Amendment concerns would have been raised in the certiorari, the Supreme Court would have clarified the burden of proof that States should have to sustain threat convictions. Facts: Robert Perez and some friends were drinking a mixture of vodka
By: Eric P. Daigle Terry stops (also known as investigatory stops) has been a useful tool for law enforcement since 1968, when the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Terry v. Ohio. [1] When used properly, Terry stops can discourage criminal activity, identify suspects, and add intelligence information to the files of known criminals. The general principles established in Terry v. Ohio
Recent Trends in Terry Stops and Pat-Downs Continue Reading
On March 4, 2015, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a 102-page report containing its findings from its investigation into the Ferguson Police Department. The release of this report has brought about a flood of attention from countless venues. Everyone from media, to legal experts and political analysts, and even the President of the United States has weighed in on the report. The report
DOJ Review of Ferguson: Is it a Blueprint? Continue Reading
The United States Supreme Court released a decision on November 4, 2013 pertaining to the constitutionality of a police officer’s warrantless pursuit of a suspect into a home based on probable cause of the commission of a misdemeanor crime.[1] A ruling from the Supreme Court is important to clarify the standards applicable to search and seizure law. This decision identifies a conflict between the