Legal Update Archive2018-08-06T22:11:41-04:00

FIFTH CIRCUIT DISCUSSES FALSE ARREST AND PROBABLE CAUSE

On October 16, 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Jones v. Perez[i], which serves as an excellent review of the law related to probable cause, false arrest, and the role of witness credibility in a probable cause determination.  The facts of Jones, taken directly from the case, are as follows: Leonardo Ortega was closing up the Subway sandwich shop where he worked when two men entered with their faces covered. One aimed a gun at Ortega while the other took cash from the register. After a struggle, Ortega was shot. He was pronounced dead when he arrived at [...]

By |August 11th, 2020|Categories: Legal updates|

SEVENTH CIRCUIT DISCUSSES CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTERS

On October 18, 2019, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Holly[i], which serves as an excellent review of the law related to consensual encounters.  The facts of Holly, both the officer’s version of events and Holly’s version, taken directly from the case, are as follows: The officers testified that they had entered a parking lot in Altgeld Gardens to get a better view of the interior courtyard, which Officer Byrne considered a high-crime area based on arrests he had made there before. Around 4:00 p.m., Officer Byrne saw Holly walking on a sidewalk toward the [...]

By |August 3rd, 2020|Categories: Legal updates|

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DENIES IMMUNITY FOR WARRANTLESS IN-HOME ARREST

On October 16, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Bailey v. Swindell et al.[i], in which the court examined whether a deputy violated the Fourth Amendment when he arrested a person inside his residence without a warrant.  The relevant facts of Bailey, taken directly from the case, are as follows: The argument had occurred when Bailey stopped by the couple's marital home to retrieve a package. Bailey no longer lived in the home with Rolinger and their two-year-old son, as the couple was embroiled in a contentious divorce. When Bailey rang the doorbell—seemingly more than once—he woke the [...]

By |July 27th, 2020|Categories: Legal updates|

CAN THE POLICE CHANGE…A HISTORICAL LOOK SUGGESTS MAYBE NOT!

By Lou Reiter, LLRMI Co-Director and Director of the Public Safety Internal Affairs InstituteLou Reiter The Ferguson incident in 2014 focused renewed attention on local police practices.  As I have written and trained over the last several years, policing has experienced this same type of scrutiny and introspection every 25-30 years.  Unfortunately, this time it took only 6 years and the George Floyd death in Minneapolis. In my opinion, however, law enforcement doesn’t learn.  We listen, nod our heads, attend study conferences and commission meetings, lean a little bit away from business as usual, and then bounce back eager to [...]

By |July 23rd, 2020|Categories: Legal updates|

UPDATE: FOURTH CIRCUIT REVERSES ITS PREVIOUS DECISION AND HOLDS STOP OF PERSON NEAR SHOOTING WITHOUT REASONABLE SUSPICION DOES NOT MEET SPECIAL NEEDS EXCEPTION TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

On July 15, 2020, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reheard the United States v. Curry[i], in which the court examined whether a stop of a person near the scene of a “shots fired” call, was reasonable under the “special needs” exception to the Fourth Amendment, even if there was no reasonable suspicion present to support the stop.  On September 05, 2019, a panel of three judges of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 that the special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment, particularly “exigent circumstances,” supported the pedestrian stop of Curry, who was walking away from the [...]

By |July 23rd, 2020|Categories: Legal updates|

FOURTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS STOP OF PERSON NEAR SHOOTING WITHOUT REASONABLE SUSPICION AS A “SPECIAL NEEDS” STOP

On September 5, 2019, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Curry[i], in which the court examined whether a stop of a person near the scene of a shooting, but without reasonable suspicion, violated the Fourth Amendment or fell within the “special needs” exception to the reasonable suspicion requirement.  The relevant facts of Curry, taken directly from the case, are as follows: On the night of September 8, 2017, four uniformed officers from the Richmond Police Department's Focus Mission Team—a division dedicated to violent crime and drug suppression—were patrolling the Creighton Court neighborhood in Richmond, Virginia.1 [...]

By |July 20th, 2020|Categories: Legal updates|

Print Friendly, PDF & Email