In Fernandez v. California [i], the United States Supreme Court clarified language from Georgia v. Randolph [ii], where it was held that officers could not enter a home based on consent when co-occupants were on the scene and one of the co-occupants was consenting while the other was objecting to entry.  In Fernandez, the Court examined the validity of consent when law enforcement has removed the co-occupant from the scene and then gets consent of the remaining occupant.  The Court held that if the removal of the co-occupant is objectively reasonable, the subsequent consent of the remaining occupant is valid. The Court outlined the facts in Fernandez as [...]

“What’s the best employment decision for off-duty police officers arrested for DUI/OWI?” This was one of the options for a research paper topic for the over 100 participants who opted to challenge the National Professional Certification for IA/OPS Investigators and Supervisors at our recent Internal Affairs Conference in Las Vegas.  This Certification Program has been a very successful program initiated by the Legal and Liability Risk Management Association of the Public Agency Training Council. Actual practice of handling off-duty officer DUI/OWI arrest incidents seems to show that there is no consistent method for handling this personnel decision.  Some agencies seem [...]

On February 25, 2013, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Folkerts v. City of Waverly [i] which is instructive regarding the application of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to police interrogations.  The facts of Folkerts, taken directly from the case, are as follows: Travis, now in his 30s, has an intellectual disability, diagnosed as mental retardation.  A psychologist characterized his mental retardation as "severe," with an IQ of 50, below the 0.1 percentile. The psychologist reported that his disability "would be obvious to anyone, including any police officer, who engaged in conversation with Travis." In May 2008, Travis lived alone [...]

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals rendered an important decision in the chemical testing of NYPD officers involved in shooting incidents.  The significance of this opinion, even if that Circuit isn’t necessarily authoritative in your jurisdiction, is that it is very clear in its analysis and follows case law from the U.S. Supreme Court.  It distinguishes the “special needs” and “public safety” doctrines applicability to public employees and relationship to the Fourth Amendment provisions in criminal proceedings. In November 2013 a panel of judges in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals took up the appeal of a previously decided case, Lynch [...]