Legal Update Archive2026-08-07T17:51:27-04:00

COURT UPHOLDS STOP OF NON-RESIDENT IN APARTMENT COMPLEX

Law enforcement officers frequently work extra jobs or secondary employment while off duty to supplement their salaries.  Often these extra jobs take the form of security and often these security jobs take place in apartment complexes that could be correctly characterized as “high crime areas.”  On February 9, 2016, the Court of Appeals of Georgia decided Sims v. State [i], which serves as an excellent review concerning the law related to an off-duty police officer’s legal authority, as well as the three levels of officer/citizen encounters. Further, it also serves as an example of conduct that supports reasonable suspicion required to justify [...]

By |March 9th, 2016|Categories: Legal updates|

8 TIPS FOR WRITING BIASED-BASED POLICING REPORTS

Biased-based policing is policing activities (such as stops, searches, arrests, use of force, etc.) that rely on stereotypes about a citizen’s race or ethnicity rather than a citizen’s actual behavior. Many law enforcement agencies conduct self-examinations for evidence of biased-based policing within their ranks, and present their findings to the public in a bias-based policing report. Some agencies write these reports voluntarily out of a sincere commitment to transparency and a desire to reassure their citizenry that biased-based policing is not occurring. Many do so in a sincere effort to root out biased-based policing activity within their agencies. Other agencies [...]

By |February 25th, 2016|Categories: Legal updates|

POST-TASER™ CONFESSION: IS A WAIVER KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY?

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 ensure that their waiver of rights is knowing and voluntary. [i] A summary of the study reported: “New research from a first-of-its-kind human study by Drexel University and Arizona State University reveals that the burst of electricity from a stun gun can impair a person’s ability to remember and process information. In a randomized control trial, participants were subjected to [...]

By |February 20th, 2016|Categories: Legal updates|

SIXTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS SEARCH WARRANT OF CELL PHONE

On January 7th, 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Rarick [i], which serves as an excellent review concerning probable cause to search a cell phone and the specificity requirements for search warrants under the Fourth Amendment.  The relevant facts of Rarick, taken directly from the case, are as follows: On February 14, 2013, Christopher Rarick was stopped by Ashland City Police Officer Kim Mager outside a Cheap Tobacco store in Ashland, Ohio, after Officer Mager conducted a LEADS inquiry on the car Rarick was driving and determined the registered owner of the vehicle, Rarick, had a suspended [...]

By |February 17th, 2016|Categories: Legal updates|

JAIL STAFF NOT DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT TO PRE-TRIAL DETAINEE MEDICAL NEEDS©

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 example of how courts will look at such claims. The court reported the facts as follows: On or around May 8, 2012, Plaintiff Robert Medley was incarcerated at the Shelby County Detention Center ("SCDC") as a pretrial detainee, charged with manufacturing methamphetamine. Medley was housed in a cell with approximately twenty-two other inmates, and his confinement at SCDC was largely [...]

By |February 15th, 2016|Categories: Legal updates|

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT HOLDS NO VIOLATION WHEN GUARD READ MAIL TO ATTORNEY

On January 22th, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Williams v. Russo et al. [i], which serves as instructive concerning Fourth Amendment protection in a prison inmate’s mail that is addressed to, but not yet mailed, to the inmate’s attorney. The relevant facts of Williams, taken directly from the case, are as follows: Mario Williams brought suit against Defendants alleging that Defendants Humphrey, Bishop, and McMillan ordered Defendant Russo to open, read, and take attorney-client privileged mail addressed to him from prisoner Miguel Jackson's prison cell. Specifically, Williams alleged that between August 8, 2012 and August 11, 2012, Russo opened, read, [...]

By |February 13th, 2016|Categories: Legal updates|
Go to Top