Resources

First Amendment “Audits” and the Civilian Right to Film Law Enforcement (Part 2)

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

First Amendment “Audits” and the Civilian Right to Film Law Enforcement (Part 1)

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

You Shall Not Pass: Knock & Talks, Curtilage and the Fourth Amendment

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

It’s All in the Hips: A Suspect’s Suspicious Movements Lead to A Reasonable Frisk

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

Let’s Not Jump to Impoundment: Officers’ Actions Show Pretext and Wrongful Impoundment of Vehicle 

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

Let’s Not Jump to Impoundment: Officers’ Actions Show Pretext and Wrongful Impoundment of Vehicle  Continue Reading

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy and Packages

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

A Frisk Too Far: Limited Search Necessary Before Performing a Full Search

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

Prolonged Pole Camera Surveillance

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

Protective Sweeps and Wall Scuffs

United States v. Thompson deals with a protective sweep surrounding a potential threat to officers. Because of some suspicious activity officers believed that an ambush could take place if they did not fully search where the suspect was staying. While performing the sweep officers uncovered evidence that would help their case. In Maryland v. Buie, the Supreme Court held that police officers may conduct

Protective Sweeps and Wall Scuffs Continue Reading

911 Call and “Something More”

Walker v. Donahoe deals with a sensitive topic, suspicious activity surrounding a past school shooting. Of course, when we have a tragedy hit our community it puts us on even higher alert to make sure it never happens again. Some of the surrounding circumstances around today’s incident include the area where the suspect was walking and the date, February 14, 2018, which was very close

911 Call and “Something More” Continue Reading

Generate POST Form

Thank you for your commitment to professional growth and your dedication to staying up to date with the latest in policy and police practices. Click the button below to access our POSTC-50 Review Training Credit Form generator.
Generate Credit Form
For assistance, please email help@dlglearningcenter.com or contact support.