Supreme Court Cases

On May 29, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Collins v. Virginia (No. 16-1027), 584 US ____ (2018), holding that the automobile exception does not permit an officer to conduct a warrantless entry into a home or its curtilage to conduct a vehicle search. On two occasions, two police Albemarle County police officers, working independently, attempted to stop a motorcycle […]

This week, the Supreme Court of United States issued its decision Byrd v. United States (No. 16-1371), 584 US ___ (2018). This is an important case for law enforcement in terms of vehicle searches. The issue before the Court was whether an unauthorized driver of a rental car has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car. The Court held that there mere

In April the Supreme Court of United States decided Kisela v. Hughes, 584 US ____ (2018), and the opinion is already the center of a debate. In this case, not only did the majority find that Officer Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity for his use of deadly force, but it also went on to criticize (to the point of expressing disappointment) the Ninth

The United States Supreme Court has an ambitious agenda on law enforcement topics for 2018. While some of the cases waiting to be decided may assist law enforcement when conducting criminal investigations, others may pose challenges to their efforts if decided the wrong way. The topics to be decided include: Whether an expectation of privacy exists when the sole occupant of a rental car

On June 5th, 2017, in Honeycutt v. United States,[1] the United States Supreme Court had the opportunity to take a close look at the forfeiture statute (formally known as the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984, 21 U. S. C. §853). The federal statute mandates forfeiture of any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, “as the result of”

On June 5th, 2017, in Honeycutt v. United States,[1] the United States Supreme Court had the opportunity to take a close look at the forfeiture statute (formally known as the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984, 21 U. S. C. §853). The federal statute mandates forfeiture of any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, “as the result of”

On May 30th, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in County of Los Angeles v. Mendez,[1] which eliminated the 9th Circuit’s “Provocation Rule,” finding that once a use of force is deemed reasonable under Graham v. Connor,[2] it may not be found unreasonable in reference to a separate constitutional violation. FACTS In October 2010, Deputies Christopher Conley (“Conley”) and Jennifer Pederson

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