Legal Update Archive2018-08-06T22:11:41+00:00

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR ARREST AND USE OF FORCE: PART TWO – EXCESSIVE FORCE

On June 4, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals of decided Manners v. Cannella et al.[i], in which the court discussed whether officers were entitled to qualified immunity for an arrest and use of force incident.  This is a two-part article.  Part One discussed whether probable cause existed to arrest Manners.  Part Two will discuss whether the use of force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.  The relevant facts of Manners are as follows: Close to three in the morning on June 24, 2014, Livingston Manners was sitting in his car on the side of Plunkett Street, a residential [...]

By |December 18th, 2018|Categories: Legal updates|

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR ARREST AND USE OF FORCE: PART ONE – PROBABLE CAUSE

On June 4, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Manners v. Cannella et al.[i], in which the court discussed whether officers were entitled to qualified immunity for an arrest and use of force incident.  This is a two-part article, with Part One discussing whether probable cause existed to arrest Manners.  Part Two will discuss whether the use of force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.  The relevant facts of Manners are as follows: Close to three in the morning on June 24, 2014, Livingston Manners was sitting in his car on the side of Plunkett Street, a residential [...]

By |December 11th, 2018|Categories: Legal updates|

SIXTH CIRCUIT DISCUSSES CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS, OFFICER OBSERVATION AND PROBABLE CAUSE

On June 6, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Boyd[i], in which the court discussed whether probable cause existed, based on an informant’s undercover drug purchase and officer observations, to justify a search of the defendant’s apartment for drugs.  The relevant facts of Boyd are as follows: Officer Aaron Ham works for the Kalamazoo Valley Enforcement Team. He has investigated drug crimes for over seventeen years. One day in May 2016, an informant told Officer Ham that Michael Boyd was selling drugs out of his apartment on McCourtie Street in Kalamazoo. Officer Ham drove [...]

By |December 4th, 2018|Categories: Legal updates|

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DISCUSSES FALSE ARREST, ARGUABLE PROBABLE CAUSE AND EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

On June 19, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Cozzi v. City of Birmingham et al.[i], in which the court discussed the legal principals involved in a Fourth Amendment false arrest suit.  The relevant facts of Cozzi are as follows: On two consecutive days, a man demanding narcotics robbed a Walgreens pharmacy and attempted to rob a Rite Aid pharmacy. In both instances, the perpetrator wore a partial face mask and handed the pharmacy technician a note that said he was a bomb specialist carrying explosives. At the Walgreens, the man acquired two pill bottles, containing a total [...]

By |November 27th, 2018|Categories: Legal updates|

SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA DISCUSSES ODOR OF MARIJUANA AND SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST

On May 7, 2018, the Supreme Court of Georgia decided Caffee v. State[i], in which the court discussed whether, based upon the odor of marijuana during a traffic stop, an officer may conduct a warrantless search of an occupant if a search of the vehicle does not reveal the source of the odor. The relevant facts of Caffee, taken directly from the case, are as follows: [O]n November 1, 2015, Deputy Mark Patterson pulled over Caffee's truck for having an expired tag. During the stop, Deputy Patterson smelled the odor of raw marijuana coming from Caffee's truck. Deputy Patterson testified [...]

By |November 20th, 2018|Categories: Legal updates|

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS EVIDENCE AGAINST MAN WHO SHOT AT A JUDGE

On May 1, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Richardson[i], in which the court examined whether statements made by the defendant were admissible and whether information received from court order for cell phone geographical information were admissible under the Fourth Amendment. The relevant facts of Richardson are as follows: In 2011, Judge Corrigan sentenced Appellant to time served and three years of supervised release for an unrelated offense. The sentence affected Appellant's enrollment at a university, so he sought to end the supervised release. But Judge Corrigan denied the request. Appellant's troubles then began [...]

By |November 13th, 2018|Categories: Legal updates|