In Lange v. California, a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on February 24, 2021, the Supreme Court weighed in on how much protection the Fourth Amendment gives to those suspected of a minor crime once they enter their home. To give some perspective on the topic, police do not need a warrant when a fleeing felon is found in their home. […]
SCOTUS: “Hot” Pursuits Continue Reading
Our legal update today will focus on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, covering those jurisdictions in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Today’s case looks at the question of whether a suspect has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his backpack when it is found at the scene of an active burglary. For some of you that may have been around the block for a while, you may recall that at one
Expectation of Privacy – United States v. Sawyer Continue Reading
The First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Today’s legal update focuses on a case out of the Second Circuit that ended up facing the Supreme Court. In today’s case we encounter both the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA and how congress and SCOTUS view compensation when dealing with an action against the RFRA. SCOTUS’s opinion ultimately affects the way “government” can be
SCOTUS: Tanzin v. Tanvir Continue Reading
Without turning today’s legal update session into a political discussion, we will discuss a new case out of the 1st Circuit involving “pole cameras”. The 1st Circuit’s argument rests on the storied legal principle of ‘Stare Decisis’. This principle has an important application under our rule of law: “keep the scales of justice even and steady and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion”. In many
1st Circuit – Pole Camera: United States v. Moore-Bush Continue Reading
Last week, we looked at a case out of the 8th Circuit talking about a case similar to the case we will discuss today. In United States v Suellentrop, the 8th Circuit allowed evidence to be submitted of pictures found on a cell phone after the pictures were found and provided to the police by a citizen. In Sullentrop, the 8th Circuit determined that the limitations on searching cell phones demanded by the Supreme Court in Riley v California did
1st Circuit: Cell Phone Video Exam – United States v Rivera-Morales Continue Reading
It should come as no surprise to any of you that a citizen’s protection against unreasonable searches under the 4th Amendment extends to his or her cell phone. Over 5 years ago in Riley v California, the US Supreme Court determined that the modern cell phone “has several interrelated consequences for privacy”. As you probably remember, in the Riley case officers searched information on Riley’s cell phone during
8th Circuit – Cell Phone Search – United States v. Suellentrop Continue Reading
First Circuit United States v. Simpkins, 978 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020) Based on information provided by a credible informant, the Maine State Police established probable cause that the defendant, Rob Simpkins, was transporting controlled substances into the state. Once within their jurisdiction, the officers conducted a high-risk traffic stop, in part, because they learned from an August 2017 “mental wellness check” that the
Circuit Courts of Appeals – December 2020 Continue Reading
Today we head to the 11th Circuit which covers the states of Alabama, Georgia and Florida to talk about issues that are currently faced by police departments across the country. These issues include appropriate applications of force, Qualified Immunity and Bystander Liability, also known as the Failure to Intervene. Before we look at the facts and the court decision in this case let me just make a
Use of Force Failure to Intervene – Eleventh Circuit Continue Reading
Today’s case highlights the important role that all of the facts play in a court’s legal calculation and an important operational consideration for your agency: it is necessary to have a plan in place that allows officers to change and reevaluate the use of force throughout an incident. Especially in today’s age of video recording and all eyes on our officers, we must be
Qualified Immunity, Deadly Use of Force Continue Reading
Today’s article will discuss a case that focuses on an Officer-Involved-Shooting in Warren, Arkansas and deals with the shooting of a suspect who, unbeknownst to the officer, was not in possession of a handgun at the time he was shot. Under these circumstances was the officer entitled to Qualified Immunity? As we navigate through this difficult time, I know that I am preaching to the
Use of Force: Officer Involved Shooting – Goffin v. Ashcraft Continue Reading