Legal Update Archive2026-08-07T17:51:27-04:00

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|

RESIDENCE VERIFICATION VISITS FOR CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS DO NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

On September 4, 2019, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided Jones v. County of Suffolk et al.[i], in which the court examined whether visits to Jones’ residence, for the purpose of verifying his address, as a person on the sex offender registry, violated the Fourth Amendment. In Jones, the County of Suffolk contracted with a private, non-profit group named Parents for Megan’s Law (PFML) for the purpose of conducting home visits to verify the addresses of registered sex offenders that are listed on the New York State Sex Offender Registry.  In July of 2013, the Suffolk County Police Department [...]

By |July 14th, 2020|Categories: Legal updates|

CONSENSUAL BLOOD TEST OF DRIVER NOT UNDER ARREST UPHELD BY GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS

On September 11, 2019, the Court of Appeals of Georgia decided O’Shields v. State[i], in which the court examined whether the consent of driver who was under the influence of drugs, not under arrest, and not provided the state “implied consent notice” was free and voluntary.  The relevant facts of O’Shields, taken directly from the case, are as follows: [I]n the early morning hours of May 25, 2015, O'Shields rear-ended a fire truck that was stopped on the expressway in Clayton County due to a previous, unrelated accident. The passenger in O'Shields's car was killed and O'Shields was injured in [...]

By |July 7th, 2020|Categories: Legal updates|
Go to Top