On March 15, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Castillo v. United States [i], which answered a question of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit, particularly whether, as a condition of pre-trial intervention, a warrantless search of a defendant’s residence is permitted under the Fourth Amendment.  The relevant facts of Castillo, taken directly from the case, are as follows: In 2008, Reynaldo Castillo entered a pretrial intervention program as part of a deferred prosecution agreement with the State of Florida. Florida offers the program to first-time offenders and some second-time offenders, Fla. Stat. § 948.08(2), who are then supervised by probation [...]

On January 5th, 2016, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Daniel [i], which serves as an excellent review concerning probable cause and the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.  The relevant facts of Daniel, taken directly from the case, are as follows: On the evening of February 14, 2013, Officers Britten and Gaddis of the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department observed a black Ford Explorer parked in what they considered a "high narcotics area." A black male was sitting in the back of the vehicle, and the officers saw him engage in what appeared to be a hand-to-hand [...]

Law Enforcement should get advice from local prosecutor before considering criminally charging someone with possession of an electronic control weapon. (NOTE: The Detailed Summary in this article comes from the detailed Concurrence Opinion of Justice Alito and joined by Justice Thomas) If ever an electronic control device proved its worth for a person who was not in law enforcement, this was the case.  The United States Supreme Court provided the background that led to a criminal charge being brought against Jaime Caetano for possession of a stun gun: After a “bad altercation” with an abusive boyfriend put her in the [...]

On January 11, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Brown [i], which serves as an excellent review concerning tips to police and reasonable suspicion.  The relevant facts of Brown, taken directly from the case, are as follows: The following facts were elicited at a magistrate judge's hearing on Brown's motion to suppress. Richmond County Sherriff's Office Sergeant William Leisey testified that, on September 4, 2013, a "trusted friend" (the "informant"), whom he had known for eight years, called him and reported that the informant had witnessed Brown selling heroin out of his restaurant, the Eros Bistro. The [...]

In Johnson v. Wickersham, [i] the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan considered a claim brought by inmates of the Macomb County Jail that challenged the jail’s mail policy.  The jail, which changed its policies going from a liberal policy to a restrictive policy that led to the lawsuit, returned to the liberal policy after the suit was filed.   The court detailed the two policies and the issues as follows: This is a First Amendment case that centers on a mail policy at the Macomb County Jail. On August 15, 2013, the Jail replaced a relatively liberal policy on the [...]

On February 1, 2016, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Thompson [i], which serves as instructive concerning the law related to a confidential informant wearing a body camera while engaged in a controlled drug buy inside the drug dealer’s residence.  The relevant facts of Thompson, taken directly from the case, are as follows: Investigators enlisted the informant to arrange and carry out a drug transaction in La Crosse, Wisconsin. The informant called a telephone number investigators knew to be associated with the Knox brothers. (The police were investigating the four Knox brothers for drug-related crimes and had identified [...]