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

GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS UPHOLDS SEARCH OF PAROLEE BASED ON FOURTH AMENDMENT WAIVER

On October 25, 2018, the Court of Appeals of Georgia decided Burkes v. State[i], in which the court examined whether officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they searched the vehicle of a parolee without a warrant pursuant to a Fourth Amendment waiver which was executed as a condition of parole.   The relevant facts of Burkes are as follows: In March 2015, a police lieutenant with the City of Acworth was on patrol near a motel when a man flagged him down. The man told the lieutenant that a man and woman had been involved in a verbal altercation at the [...]

By |April 24th, 2019|Categories: Legal updates|

PLAINTIFF IN EXCESSIVE FORCE LACKS EVIDENCE AND PROVIDES CONFLICTING VERSIONS OF EVENTS, COURT GRANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR OFFICERS

On November 9, 2018, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decided Damiani v. Duffy et al.[i], in which the court examined whether officers were entitled to summary judgment regarding a claim of excessive force when making an arrest for armed robbery.   The relevant facts of Damiani are as follows: After a series of related armed robberies in New Castle County, Delaware, several law enforcement agencies met on December 6, 2010, in a coordinated effort to catch the perpetrators, who used a dark-colored Honda Civic as their getaway car. Defendants Morrissey and Bouldin, county law enforcement officers serving as task force [...]

By |April 24th, 2019|Categories: Legal updates|

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DISCUSSES SCOPE OF A TRAFFIC STOP AND THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION

On October 16, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Simeon[i], which serves as an excellent review of the law pertaining to expanding the scope of a traffic stop and the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.   The relevant facts of Simeon are as follows: Simeon was riding in the passenger seat of a car rented in his name when Birmingham Police Officer William Harrington pulled the car over for speeding. Charles Jacks was driving the car. During the traffic stop, Harrington learned that only Simeon was on the rental agreement and discovered a warrant [...]

By |April 24th, 2019|Categories: Legal updates|

NINTH CIRCUIT DISCUSSES ROUTINE SECURITY SCREENS FOR EMPLOYEE WHO MADE A THREAT

On October 24, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Nickler v. County of Clark et al.[i], in which the court examined whether the county or its employees violated the constitution by requiring an employee to undergo a daily security screen search. In this case, Nickler was employed as a clerk at the Clark County (Nevada) District Attorney’s Office.  In December of 2012, she was temporarily removed from work after making a comment that her supervisor considered to be threatening.  After being allowed to return to her position and obtaining a “Certificate of Fitness,” she was required daily, to [...]

By |April 23rd, 2019|Categories: Legal updates|

THIRD CIRCUIT FINDS NO SEIZURE WHEN OFFICER REQUESTED PERSON TO TAKE HANDS OUT OF POCKETS

On October 3, 2018, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. De Castro[i], in which the court examined whether a person was seized under the Fourth Amendment when an officer requested that he take his hands out of his pockets.   The relevant facts of De Castro are as follows: During the early evening hours of September 22, 2014, an anonymous source called 911 to report a Hispanic male pointing a gun at juveniles outside a vacant flower shop on the 1800 block of North 31st Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The suspect was reportedly wearing a gray [...]

By |April 16th, 2019|Categories: Legal updates|

SIXTH CIRCUIT EXAMINES CURTILAGE AND OFFICER CONDUCT DURING A KNOCK AND TALK

On September 6, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Morgan v. Fairfield County[i], in which the court discussed whether deputies violated the Fourth Amendment when they went into a back yard and side yard while conducting a knock and talk. The relevant facts of Morgan are as follows: Morgan and Graf owned a home together on about a one-acre lot. The front of the house faced the road, and a sidewalk ran from the road to their front door. In the front window and on a vehicle parked on the property were no-trespassing signs. There were neighboring homes—each [...]

By |April 9th, 2019|Categories: Legal updates|