On June 23, 2016, the United States Supreme Court ruled that breath tests, but not blood tests, may be administered as a search incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving.[1] The Supreme Court’s decision was the result of a consolidation of three separate cases in which the states have enacted laws making it a criminal offense to refuse to submit to BAC testing […]
On June 20, 2016, the United State Supreme Court released its decision in Utah v. Edward Strieff, Jr.,[1] wherein it held that evidence is admissible even where an officer makes an unconstitutional investigatory stop when, during the stop, the officer learns that the individual has an outstanding arrest warrant, arrests the individual, and seizes the incriminating evidence as a result of a search incident
Supreme Court Says Police May Use Evidence Found After Illegal Stops Continue Reading
Atty. John M. (Jack) Collins, Police Legal Advisor Martha’s Vineyard, MA Rather than waiting to be asked by a municipal official, community advocate, religious group or member of the press, chiefs have come to anticipate most “hot button” topics and to prepare for such inquiries. Adverse publicity can result quickly when police officers are accused of mishandling a transgender arrestee. Picketers on various “sides”
Drafting a Policy RE: Interactions with Transgender Persons Continue Reading
Prepared by: Officer Jamie Borden, Henderson Police Department As a Use of Force instructor for the past several years, as well as an expert in human factors and an experienced video analyst, I have seen first-hand the disparaging differences between the intended purpose of a policy and how that policy is actually applied in the aftermath of a critical incident, particularly where an officer
Use of Force – Does Policy Matter? (Pre and Post Incident) Continue Reading
On June 22, 2015 the United States Supreme Court ended the decade long debate of the appropriate use of force standard for pretrial detainees in Kingsley v. Hendrickson[1]. Previously the Fourteenth Amendment standard lay within a fractured body of case law, due to the United States Supreme Court’s refusal to address the split throughout the federal circuit courts. According to Irene Baker[2], courts and
January 2016 v.2 This memorandum serves to remind to all officers of proper procedure when dealing with the “open carry” issues surrounding firearms. While there is confusion as to application, Connecticut law and court decisions still support open carry; and still do not require individuals to show pistol permits to law enforcement when requested to do so, unless reasonable suspicion of a crime exists.
Connecticut Police Officers and Open Carry Response Continue Reading
Written By: James Marker and Eric Daigle, Esq. Across the Country, in response to use of force incidents, there is a knee jerk reaction of different organizations to adapt the United Kingdom’s National Decision Making Model into American law enforcement. This article will discuss why this decision is unacceptable, and why it does not represent current case law and constitutional standards. Law enforcement has
On January 11, 2016, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the case of Armstrong v. Pinehurst, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 380. The Court’s decision has astounded much of the law enforcement community on the east coast and, since that day, we have not stopped talking about the use of the electronic control weapon. I must say, however, that I was not surprised by
Use of the Electronic Control Weapon: Is the Standard Changing? Continue Reading
It is clear that 2015 was a very difficult and tumultuous year for law enforcement. Law Enforcement has been the subject of much national critical media analysis, specifically officer use of force and deadly force incidents. As a result, officers and their Chiefs are fearful of becoming the next targets of viral videos, and having their decisions and actions judged by armchair quarterbacks. In
Is More Training Really the Answer? How About Effective Supervision? Continue Reading
Here are the “recommendations” and “action items” from the Interim Report. The whole report is here.[1] 0.1 OVERARCHING RECOMMENDATION: The President should support and provide funding for the creation of a National Crime and Justice Task Force to review and evaluate all components of the criminal justice system for the purpose of making recommendations to the country on comprehensive criminal justice reform. 0.2 OVERARCHING
President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing Summary Continue Reading