Resources

The United States Supreme Court held, in Carroll v. Carman,[1] that a police officer was entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established as to whether officers may utilize an entryway, other than the front door, when entering a property and conducting an inquiry under the “knock and talk” exception to the warrant requirement. On July 3, 2009, the Pennsylvania State

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.

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,

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

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