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

Why You Should be Concerned About the U.S. Department of Justice Consent Decrees

©2010 Lou Reiter, Co-Director, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (LLRMI.COM) In 1994, tucked into the Crime Bill, was an innocuous two paragraph Section 14141.  It was an outgrowth of the clamor after the Rodney King incident.  In essence it allowed the U.S. Department of Justice to begin an investigation and, if warranted and necessary, instigate a civil lawsuit against a local law enforcement agency when it determined that the agency was engaged in widespread civil rights violations. In 1997, the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section, entered into Federal Court monitored Consent Decrees with the [...]

By |December 23rd, 2010|Categories: Legal updates|

SEARCH WARRANT UPHELD DESPITE TECHNICAL ERROR

©2010 Brian S. Battertion, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (LLRMI.COM) United States v. Thurman (8th Cir. Decided November 22, 2010) At times, addresses of homes are ambiguous or difficult to determine.  Law enforcement officers seeking to obtain search warrants must rely on common sense, tax records and other information available to them in order to determine the proper address for the warrant.  What happens, however, if the law enforcement officer applying for the search warrant uses the incorrect address?  While cases such as this often are determined by the specific facts before the court, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently [...]

By |December 21st, 2010|Categories: Legal updates|

9-1-1 HANG-UP CALLS:

©2010 Brian S. Battertion, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (LLRMI.COM) Johnson v. the City of Memphis 617 F.3d 864 (6th Cir. 2010) Law enforcement officers often receive “9-1-1 hang-up” dispatches.  These are, as the name of the dispatch infers, calls to a 9-1-1 center where the caller hangs up the phone prior to providing any details to the dispatcher.  When police arrive on these calls, often the question arises as to whether they are able to enter the call location without a warrant.  While the answer to that question is very fact-specific, we will look to Johnson v. the City [...]

By |December 11th, 2010|Categories: Legal updates|

CANINE’S LEAP INTO CAR DID NOT VIOLATE 4th AMENDMENT

©2010 Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (LLRMI.COM)  United States v. Lujan, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21021 (10th Cir. Decided October 12, 2010) It has long been established that a canine sniff of the exterior of a vehicle that is located in a public place does not implicate the Fourth Amendment because it provides only information about contraband and is minimally intrusive.[i]   This rule begs the question about the possible Fourth Amendment implications when a police canine that is conducting a sniff of the exterior of a vehicle, jumps into the vehicle during the sniff.  This was just the case [...]

By |November 9th, 2010|Categories: Legal updates|

FALSE ARREST, RACE CASE

©2010 Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (LLRMI.COM)  Lockett v. City of New Orleans et al., No. 09-30712, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9261 (5th Cir. Decided May 5, 2010) In July of 2008, Lockett, a Southern University of New Orleans (SUNO) student was driving to class.  Two guardsmen with the National Guard Task Force in effect to assist the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) after Hurricane Katrina, observed Lockett and stopped him for speeding.  He stopped at the entrance to the school which also shared an entrance with the local FBI office.  When Lockett told the guardsmen [...]

By |November 5th, 2010|Categories: Legal updates|

CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AND SPATIAL PROXIMITY

©2010 Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (LLRMI.COM)   In the Interest of J.S., A10A0654, 2010 Ga. App. LEXIS 399 (Decided April 16, 2010) On December 23, 2008, a police officer in Georgia observed a car parked at an open convenience store at the end of the parking lot.  As the officer observed the vehicle, which was occupied by a driver and a back seat passenger, J.S., a juvenile, drove up in another vehicle and parked near the first car.  J.S. then climbed in the passenger side of the first car.  The officer could not see anything in [...]

By |October 15th, 2010|Categories: Legal updates|
Go to Top