Summaries courtesy of FLETC Legal Training Division & The Informer First Circuit Caniglia v. Strom, 953 F.3d 112 (1st Cir. 2020) In August 2015, Kim Caniglia called the police department and asked that an officer accompany her to her residence where she lived with her husband, Edward. Kim stated that the day before, during an argument with Edward, he retrieved a handgun from the […]
Circuit Courts of Appeal – April 2020 Continue Reading
Over the past few weeks, we have fielded many requests from police departments on how best to integrate a body worn camera system into their department. Most agencies have met some level of initial resistance from their department members, who are concerned with the negative implications of wearing the camera – usually a “big brother is watching concern.” Over the past four years, I
Wearing a Badge, And a Video Camera Continue Reading
In a recent training video, we sang the praises of the 9th Circuit when the appellate court approved officers seizing a cell phone during an inventory search. Today, however, we review a 9th Circuit case where the court was not so kind. For those of you who may remember the 2000 Supreme Court case – Florida v J.L.[1] – today’s case, United States vs
Can an Anonymous Tip Give Police Probable Cause? Continue Reading
Today we will look at a case out of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, covering those jurisdictions in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Today’s case, United States vs Sawyer[1], looks at the question of whether a suspect has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his backpack found at the scene of an active burglary. For some of you that may have been around the
Burglar Has No Expectation of Privacy Continue Reading
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
Reasonable Suspicion is Enough to Extend a Traffic Stop Continue Reading
On April 6, 2020, the United States Supreme Court answered the question of whether an officer (or in this case a deputy) violates the Fourth Amendment when he/she makes an investigative stop after running a license plate and discovering that the vehicle belongs to an operator with a revoked license. The Supreme Court held that “when an officer lacks information negating an inference that
NACOLE brought together national experts and members of the oversight community to share information about what jurisdictions across the country are doing to address agency administrative considerations; possible impact on services and community engagement activities; and policing practices during this time. This free webinar discusses how the current crisis may affect civilian oversight of law enforcement practices in the future. Learn more at https://www.nacole.org/
Webinar: Impact of COVID-19 on Oversight Bodies and Strategies to Move Forward Continue Reading
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
Utah City’s Traffic Ordinance Does Not Violate First Amendment Continue Reading
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
Handcuffs as a De-escalation Tool Continue Reading
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
No Immunity for SWAT Teams Use of Flash Diversionary Device Continue Reading