Court adjourned at the end of July and its time to learn what they left us to work with! The United States Supreme Court term ended and they delivered opinions on recent case law that impacts the way officers should conduct themselves in the field. The following are four cases decided in the last term for law enforcement legal updated training. Prado Navarette v. […]
2014 United States Supreme Court Cases Continue Reading
In its decision issued just yesterday, the United States Supreme Court delivered the ruling that, barring any exigent circumstances, officers must obtain a warrant to search a cell phone seized in a search incident to a lawful arrest. For the past year or two, we have been very vocal in law enforcement training when addressing the issue of searching cell phones incident to arrest,
Search a Cell Phone Incident to Lawful Arrest? Get a Warrant! Continue Reading
In Plumhoff v. Rickard[1], a decision handed down on May 27, 2014, the United States Supreme Court held that officers’ use of deadly force to terminate a dangerous car chase did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court also held, in the alternative, that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established law. While this article reviews
Supreme Court Approves Deadly Force to Stop a Dangerous Pursuit Continue Reading
In Prado Navarette v. California[1], the United States Supreme Court held that an anonymous 911 call (alleging specific reckless driving behavior), which resulted in the caller’s car being run off the road, gave officers reasonable suspicion of drunk driving. This, then, justified the traffic stop of that vehicle, and the arrest of the occupants for transporting marijuana. The vote was a 5-4 split. On
Does an Anonymous Call Give Reasonable Suspicion of DUI Continue Reading
Last week, the United States Supreme issued a decision in Fernandez v. California[1] clarifying an earlier decision in Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), which held that when multiple individuals reside at a premises, if a physically present individual objects to a warrantless search of the residence, the police may not search the residence even if another occupant consents to the search. The
Fernandez v. California: Removal of an Objector During a Consent Search Continue Reading
Written By: Chief Thomas Grimaldi, Bristol Police Department, Bristol, CT Every police department, at one time or another has had its low points. Some, more serious and more infamous than others. One only needs to look back into history books to identify police departments clouded by scandals. In 1971 the Knapp Commission uncovered corruption in New York City Police department, later chronicled in the
When you joined the department as a new officer your first taste of supervision was through the Sergeant. Most of us look at the Sergeant and say “that’s a good job.” If your experience is like mine I remember the supervisor saying, “don’t bother me unless someone dies.” That was twenty years ago and, unfortunately as you all have worked toward the rank of
Your Department Is Only as Strong as Your Weakest Supervisor 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
For the purpose of providing guidance to Law Enforcement our firm is dedicated to spotting emerging trends and staying abreast of developing law as advances in the technological world merge with law enforcement practices. Back in 2012, we first started discussing the effect and influence of emerging technology, and the difficulties surrounding the use, search, and seizure of cell phones in the law enforcement
Private Emails Are Not So Private for Government Employees Continue Reading
Attorney Ken Wallentine Four years ago, in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), the Supreme Court took a sharp turn in the law of search incident to arrest. The Court stepped back toward the two justifications for the search incident to arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement—preservation of evidence and officer safety—first definitively articulated in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752
Courts Limit Cell Phone Searches Incident to Arrest Continue Reading