Continue to the end of this article for important commentary by author Jack Ryan, J.D. On May 18, 2009, the United States Supreme Court issued its 5/4 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal.i  While at first glance this case had little or nothing to do with local law enforcement and claims brought against law enforcement, the decision may have far reaching implications on supervisory liability in civil rights claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983against supervisors. The Iqbal case was brought by Javaid Iqbal against government officials, including United States Attorney General John Ashcroft and Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller.  Iqbal had been arrested after [...]

One of the most frequent questions coming into the Public Agency Training Council’s website in the last week since the Arizona v. Gant case was decided has been how this case would impact an inventory search of a motor vehicle which was authorized by the United States Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Opperman.   The short answer is that Arizona v. Gant has no impact on inventory searches since the Court was specifically addressing “search incident to arrest” and concluded the majority opinion by recognizing that law enforcement would be justified in searching vehicles of persons arrested if another exception to the warrant requirement applied. [...]

In Arizona v. Gaunt decided by the United States Supreme Court this week, there is a sentence in the majority opinion which is creating a misconception by the media as well as numerous law enforcement web-sites and commentators reporting on the case. The quote creating the issue asserts: “When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies.” This has led to numerous commentators, some of whom are relied upon by law enforcement agencies to state: “The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police need a warrant to [...]

Law enforcement officers throughout the United States recognize their ability to search vehicles incident to the arrest of an occupant.  The foundation purpose of such searches is to prevent the subject from reaching into the vehicle for a weapon or reaching into the vehicle to destroy evidence.  These searches have, for many years, been limited to the passenger compartment of the vehicle. As a tactical matter, an officer who arrests the occupant of a vehicle generally handcuffs the individual and secures them in the rear of their law enforcement vehicle, prior to conducting the search.  This is of particular importance [...]

On March 27, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided the United States v. Washingtoni which serves as an excellent criminal procedure review for “street crime” police units.  In this case, the District of Columbia High Impact Tactical police team, a unit that operates in high crime areas, was on patrol in a neighborhood in southeast Washington, D.C.  This neighborhood is known for narcotics trafficking, shootings, and homicides.  The unit’s goal was to use traffic violations as a reason to initiate citizen contact and then investigate whether the vehicle occupants are involved in other criminal activity. At 9:30 [...]

In Corley v. United Statesi  the United States Supreme Court considered how a delay in bringing a suspect before a court would impact a confession obtained during the delay. At the outset it must be noted that the Court is reviewing this case in terms of the Federal Statute covering the admissibility of Confessions and the duty of officers to present an arrestee to a magistrate without unnecessary delay.ii  The Court in reviewing the case was also forced to consider the continued application of the McNabb/Mallory rule of prior cases which interpreted the federal rules of criminal procedure.iii All officers should recognize that [...]