On April 11, 2014, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Pierce et al. v. Springfield Township, Ohio [i] which serves as an excellent explanation of the law as it pertains to a police officer’s duty to provide medical aid and/or allow others to provide aid.  The facts of Pierce are as follows: In the late evening of December 5, 2010, and early morning of December 6, Cordell Drummond fired several handgun rounds into the ground. Officers Marc Downs and Joseph Powers were parked in their patrol cars chatting with the windows down at the car wash at Seven Hills Plaza. At around 1:12 [...]

The United States Supreme Court overturned the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in a police shooting case based on the manner in which the 5th Circuit analyzed the case. The case, Tolan v. Cotton, deals with the manner in which a court must analyze the facts when deciding whether an officer is entitled to summary judgment or qualified immunity. At the outset it is important to note that an officer will be entitled to summary judgment when a court looks at the facts, as reported by the plaintiff, and concludes that the officer did not violate the Constitution.   [...]

Law enforcement officers shooting into vehicle following an initial pursuit and to prevent a further pursuit did not violate the Fourth Amendment. [i] The United States Supreme Court outlined the facts of Plumhoff v. Rickard as follows: Near midnight on July 18, 2004, Lieutenant Joseph Forthman of the West Memphis, Arkansas, Police Department pulled over a white Honda Accord because the car had only one operating headlight. Donald Rickard was the driver of the Accord, and Kelly Allen was in the passenger seat. Forthman noticed an indentation, “‘roughly the size of a head or a basketball’” in the windshield of the car. [...]

When law enforcement officers restrict a person’s freedom of movement, the officer has seized that person under the Fourth Amendment.  At times, firefighters will also restrict a person’s movement, sometimes against that person’s will, for the purpose of providing medical treatment or an evaluation.  On April 15, 2014, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Overton [i], which illustrates how seizure by fire personnel also implicates the Fourth Amendment. In Overton, on or about April 29, 2012, Bennie Overton committed a car-jacking, stealing Gore’s car.  Then: Five days later, on May 4, 2012, Cincinnati Fire Department personnel ("EMS personnel") [...]

At times, law enforcement officers will be involved in shootings and it is later learned or alleged that the suspect never actually pointed his firearm at the officer(s).  Plaintiffs and the media often raise this issue and argue that the shooting was not reasonable because the suspect never pointed his gun at the officers. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has addressed this very issue.  In 1997, they decided Montoute v. Carr [i], in which Sergeant Carr shot Montoute, who was armed with a shotgun, despite the fact that Montoute did not point the gun at him and was running away.  The [...]

On February 27, 2014, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Holleman [i], which serves as an excellent review of several constitutional issues that face law enforcement officers on a regular basis, such as justification for traffic stops, searches on traffic stops, canine sniffs, and Miranda custody issues.   To start, the facts of Holleman, taken directly from the case, are as follows: On May 8, 2012, Holleman was driving a white Chevrolet truck on Interstate 80 through Iowa. An Iowa State Patrol trooper observed Holleman traveling at seventy-three miles per hour (in excess of the posted speed limit of [...]