In past articles we have discussed the proper use of handcuffs and the importance of checking cuffs for tightness and double locking the cuffs to avoid tightening. Some of you may recall the 2004 case out of San Diego where the surgeon was awarded a multi-million- dollar verdict by a jury, based in part, on a finding that officers applied the handcuffs too tightly […]
Excessive Force by Tight Handcuffs Continue Reading
It is not unusual for us to review car stop cases. As I have said more than once, car stops are the bread and butter of good police work. But what happens in those cases where officers conduct a legitimate car stop based on mistaken information? Fortunately, as we see in this case[1], the courts understand that in the fast-paced business of policing there
Police Mistakes Can Still Lead to Valid Arrests Continue Reading
Today we will touch on a couple of criminal procedure issues – the ability of officers to enter a person’s property to conduct a so-called “knock and talk” and the ever-popular subject of curtilage. As you know, there can be areas outside of a subject’s home that enjoy the same privacy rights as property located within the subject’s home. In a recent Supreme Court
The Limits of Knock and Talk Police Encounters Continue Reading
The subject of today’s article – vehicle inventory searches – is a subject area we have covered before. However, the question we look at in this case, United States vs. Garay[1], is whether the cell phone seized during the inventory should be suppressed because it was not properly listed on the inventory form. More importantly, we actually have a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Seizure, Search of Mobile Phone Post High-Speed Chase Continue Reading
This week we look at a traffic stop case, United States v. Gurule[1], that touches on a number of issues – requiring passengers to exit the vehicle during the stop, consent to search, and frisking the passenger during a consent search. I often say that the success or failure of a case is often determined based on a matter of seconds and the quality
Detention and Frisking of Car Passenger was Proper Continue Reading
Certainly, there is a great deal of discussion among law enforcement, the media, and the public concerning ICE operations at large employment centers. Do undocumented workers have 4th Amendment protections in these situations and, if so, can evidence of alienage be suppressed if improperly secured by officers or ICE agents at the scene? Let’s take a look at the facts in the Cruz[1] case
Undocumented Alien’s 4th Amendment Protections during ICE Detention Continue Reading
Over the last several NTOA publications the Legal Counsel section has fielded several articles dealing with mental health issues and the legal use of force when dealing with non- criminal subjects suffering some type of mental health episode. The purpose of today’s article is to review the current status of case law across the country dealing with this issue and ask the question –
Written By: Captain Joseph Race, Esq. With the DLG First Amendment Summit around the corner how about a look at some issues covered under the Freedom of Religion. Over the past several years, multiple police departments, sheriff’s offices, and detention facilities have been sued for civil rights violations for forcing Muslim women to remove their hijab during the booking process. Below, we will discuss
Freedom of Religion in the Booking Process Continue Reading
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