On May 16, 2013, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Hennix v. Prickett et al. [i] which serves as a reminder about when the use of a TASER is considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. At the outset, it must be noted that some facts of this case are in dispute and the court was required to view the facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff in this case, as the defendant officers were making a motion to dismiss the suit based on qualified immunity. The incident began when an officer stopped Hennix for speeding.  Upon observing signs of [...]

Public school officials are continually developing new strategies to combat drug use and possession in their schools, and often these officials take action or implement policies that implicate the Fourth Amendment. Recently, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decided C.M v. Springfield Public Schools et al., [i] which involved a police canine sniff of student’s belongings in a public high school.  The facts of the case are as follows: C.M. was a freshman at the district's Central High School during the 2009 to 2010 school year. In April 2010 two deputies from the Greene County sheriff's department arrived at the school with [...]

In Salinas v. Texas, the United States Supreme Court considered whether a prosecutor could comment on a suspect’s reaction when questioned by law enforcement in a circumstance where the suspect was not in custody and had not been Mirandized.  At the outset it is important to note that this was not a custodial interrogation case where silence in response to questions would not be subject to comment by a prosecutor. The Court outlined the background of the case as follows: On the morning of December 18, 1992, two brothers were shot and killed in their Houston home. There were no witnesses to [...]

On March 8, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. King [i] in which they decided the issue of whether a warrantless, suspicion-less search of a probationer is constitutional under the Fourth Amendmentwhen it is based solely on a waiver of the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of probation.  The facts of King, taken directly from the case, are as follows: Officers of the San Francisco Police Department suspected that Defendant was involved in a homicide. When they checked into his criminal history, they learned that he was on adult felony probation in the City and County of [...]

The leaders of fire, EMS and police departments have been struggling with the challenge of emergency personnel taking emergency scene photos and videos and sharing them through social media. Inexpensive, high quality digital cameras have become a perceived necessity in the digital age – so much so that most cellphones now come with cameras built in. The digital imaging phenomenon has fueled inappropriate taking and sharing of imagery, which in turn has created public relations nightmares for chiefs. In a growing number of cases, the taking and posting of patients photos has also led to costly lawsuits. The problem promoted [...]

On June 3, 2013, the United States Supreme Court decided Maryland v. King [i] which involved the issue of whether a Maryland statute that required arrestees of violent crimes to submit to a “buccal swab” of their cheek for a DNA sample was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. In King, the defendant was arrested in April of 2009 for threatening a group of people with a shotgun.  He was charged under Maryland statute with first and second degree assault, and he was taken to Wicomico County Central Booking facility.  There, booking personnel, pursuant to the Maryland DNA Collection Act, used a cheek swab to [...]