Prior to examining case law defining the parameters of governmental liability one should first be familiar with the process and the mechanisms for risk-reduction and risk avoidance.  A clearer understanding of these principles allows the reader to judge the cases against the backdrop of these principles.  The reader should be encouraged to consider how the principles of risk management may have reduced the liability exposure in a particular case. The attack of the plaintiff’s attorney:    When an attorney reviews the incident at 2:00 a.m. and contemplates filing a lawsuit against the officer (s) he or she begins by looking at [...]

On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case [Pearson v Callahan] where officers of the Central Utah Narcotics Task Force were sued for entering the home of a drug suspect, Callahan, immediately after a confidential informant made a drug buy from Callahan and gave officers a signal that the buy had been made.  Callahan’s criminal case had been dismissed after the criminal court determined that the officers did not have exigent circumstances to justify the entry without a warrant and the court concluded that the drugs would not have been inevitably discovered.  Following the dismissal [...]

United States Supreme Court On Tuesday October 7th 2008, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases with direct interest for law enforcement - United States v. Herring, and Arizona v. Gant. United States v. Herring      (Read final Verdict of this case here) The first case, United States v. Herring involved the arrest of Herring on a mistaken warrant.  An investigator from Coffee County in Alabama had the warrant clerk from his Sheriff’s Office call the warrant clerk at the Dale County Sheriff’s Office to determine if Herring, who had been at the Coffee County Sheriff’s Office dealing with an impounded [...]

“Consent Once Removed”- Does it Apply to Confidential Informer Buys? The first of the search and seizure cases is Pearson v. Callahan,i which is scheduled for argument on Tuesday October 14th.  The case involves a lawsuit brought by Callahan regarding a narcotics raid at his home following his sale of drugs to a confidential informant. The United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit set forth the facts as follows: This appeal evolves from a police raid of Mr. Callahan's home on March 19, 2002. Earlier in the day, a confidential informant--who assisted the Central Utah Narcotics Task Force after being [...]

Was Statement made during an Ongoing Emergency-in attempt to Resolve Emergency? Was Statement made after Emergency-in effort to prove Past Events for Criminal Prosecution? What was Defendant’s Purpose in Murdering the Witness? United States Supreme Court Provides Further Rules [’07-’08 Term] Over the last five years, the United States Supreme Court has looked at a number of cases involving the confrontation clause to the United States Constitution and how that clause impacts the admissibility of statements made to law enforcement in cases where, by the time of trial, the witness who made the statement is unavailable to trial. In police [...]

Harris v. Coweta County, et al., No. 07-13941, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 353 (11th Cir. 2008) In 2007, the United States Supreme Court decided Scott v. Harrisi, which vastly limited Fourth Amendment liability arising from vehicle pursuits.  This case began in 2001, when Victor Harris was clocked traveling 73 mph in a 55 mph speed zone.  Harris fled the traffic stop and caused a pursuit that lasted approximately 10 miles.  During the pursuit, he sped through a shopping center and crashed into a police car, he drove over 90 mph on two lane roads, he swerved around at least 12 other motorists, [...]