Legal Update Archive2018-08-06T22:11:41+00:00

SIXTH CIRCUIT DENIES IMMUNITY FOR OFFICER FOR ALLEGEDLY HANDCUFFING ARRESTEE TOO TIGHT

On August 21, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Hansen v. Aper[i], which is instructive regarding the Sixth Circuit’s requirements for a Fourth Amendment claim when handcuffing a suspect too tightly.  The relevant facts of Hansen are as follows: On September 28, 2013, Aper observed Hansen driving almost twenty miles per hour over the speed limit on U.S. Highway 2 in Michigan and initiated a traffic stop. Hansen was accompanied by another passenger. As he was talking with Hansen and his passenger, Aper smelled marijuana. Aper asked Hansen to get out of the car and Hansen complied. Aper [...]

By |March 12th, 2019|Categories: Legal updates|

NO CONTACT ORDER: CAN A PERSON REMOVED FROM A RESIDENCE HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY?

On August 21, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Schram[i], in which serves as instructive regarding whether a person who has been barred from a residence by a court order, can possess a reasonable expectation of privacy at that residence.  The relevant facts of Schram, taken directly from the case, are as follows: On September 24, 2014, detectives from the Medford Police Department were called to investigate the robbery of a local U.S. Bank branch. After interviewing eyewitnesses and further police work, the detectives had probable cause to believe that Schram was responsible. A [...]

By |March 5th, 2019|Categories: Legal updates|

FIFTH CIRCUIT HOLDS NO FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION WHEN DETECTIVE VIEWED CHILD PORN DISCOVERED BY PRIVATE COMPANY

On August 17, 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Reddick[i], in which the Fifth Circuit decided a case of first impression that stemmed from a detective viewing images from Reddick’s computer files that were downloaded to Microsoft SkyDrive and sent to law enforcement via a tip line.  The relevant facts of Reddick, taken directly from the case, are as follows: Henry Reddick uploaded digital image files to Microsoft SkyDrive, a cloud hosting service. SkyDrive uses a program called PhotoDNA to automatically scan the hash values of user-uploaded files and compare them against the hash [...]

By |February 26th, 2019|Categories: Legal updates|

THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE CALL FOR CANINE AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BUT DON’T FORGET THE CLOCK IF REASONABLE SUSPICION IS NOT PRESENT

On August 15, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals of decided the United States v. Rivas[i], in which serves as an excellent review of Fourth Amendment requirements for officers that call canine to conduct a free sniff during a traffic stop. In Rivas, the defendant was driving in Alabama when he was stopped for a violation of Alabama statute 32-5A-88, which requires that a vehicle “shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane…” According to the officer, Rivas breached the fog line eight times.  Due to a language barrier, the officer contacted a translation service.  [...]

By |February 19th, 2019|Categories: Legal updates|

OFFICERS THAT SHOT EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED MAN WITH A BIG STICK DID NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

On August 17, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Wilson v. Parker et al.[i], which serves as an excellent review of the law pertaining to the Fourth Amendment and the use of deadly force.  The relevant facts of Wilson, taken directly from the case, are as follows: A. Uncontested Facts On July 21, 2015, Parker and Thompson responded to a call stating that it sounded like two men were fighting in the woods behind the caller's house. Parker and Thompson began searching the woods using the procedure called "contact and cover," described above. Thompson made initial contact with [...]

By |February 12th, 2019|Categories: Legal updates|

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DISCUSSES THE VEHICLE INVENTORY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT

On September 11, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Moss[i], in which the court discussed the vehicle inventory exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The relevant facts of Moss are as follows: On August 6, 2015, at approximately two o'clock in the morning, Miami Gardens Police Department officers on patrol saw a 2002 silver Buick bearing temporary Florida paper license tag BLH9635 exit the parking lot of an Exxon gas station in Miami Gardens, Florida. The officers observed that neither Mr. Moss, who was driving the vehicle, nor the front seat [...]

By |February 5th, 2019|Categories: Legal updates|