A study conducted by Drexel University and Arizona State University has reached a conclusion that officers should wait an hour after a TASER™ deployment before Mirandizing a suspect in order to give the suspect a recovery period in order to [...]
The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky reviewed Robert Medley’s claim that the staff at the Shelby County Jail had been deliberately indifferent to injuries he received while at the jail. [i] The case provides a good [...]
In Estate of Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst et al. the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit examined the use of a TASER™, in the drive stun mode, on a mentally impaired subject and determined that the officers used [...]
In Mullenix v. Luna, the United States Supreme Court reviewed a high-speed chase where a trooper, from the Texas Department of Public Safety shot into the fleeing vehicle from an overpass in an attempt to disable the vehicle. In doing [...]
In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, [i] the United States Supreme Court considered what the appropriate standard was for determining whether a use of force on a pretrial detainee was excessive under the Constitution. The Court concluded that use of force on a pretrial [...]
Officers entitled to Qualified Immunity on 4th Amendment Claim Regarding Shooting of Mentally Impaired, Violent and Armed Subject-Law Not Clearly Established as to Whether an Officer Must Consider Disability before making 4th Amendment Entry In City and County of San [...]
n Rodriguez v. United States, the United States Supreme Court examined a traffic stop that was followed by the officer asking for consent to walk his dog around the vehicle. When the consent was refused, the officer held the motorist until a [...]
In a case where the officer is reasonably mistaken about the law and evidence is seized, the evidence will not be suppressed. The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that when a law enforcement officer makes a reasonable mistake [...]
Officer Gets Qualified Immunity But Court Does Not Answer the Constitutional Question In Carroll v. Carman [i] the United States Supreme Court reviewed a case where officers conducting an investigation knocked on the rear door of a home without ever having knocked [...]
he Supreme Court has ruled in two consolidated cases that a cellular device may not be searched incident to arrest. Exigency may justify a search but the possibility of a remote wipe or data encryption due to phone lock is [...]