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

FIFTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS NON-MIRANDIZED, IN CUSTODY CONSENT TO SEARCH

On February 15, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Gonzalez-Garcia [i], which is instructive regarding the law related to consent to search obtained while a person is in custody.  The facts of Gonzalez, taken directly from the case, are as follows: Federal agents suspected that criminal activity was afoot at a house in McAllen, Texas and began surveilling the residence. Agents observed several details that they believed to be suggestive of drug activity, including that the house's yard was "unkempt," several vehicles in front of the house had temporary license plates, and persons at the house stored [...]

By |August 23rd, 2017|Categories: Legal updates|

FIFTH CIRCUIT HOLDS NON-CONSENSUAL WITNESS DETENTION IS A FOURTH AMENDMENT SEIZURE

©2017 Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (www.llrmi.com) On April 20, 2017, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Lincoln v. Barnes[i], in which the court discussed the whether the non-consensual detention of a witness to a police involved shooting violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment. The relevant facts of Lincoln, taken directly from the case, are as follows: In December 2013, John ran out of his medication and for reasons unknown was unable to refill his prescription. On December 26, 2013, John had been dining with his father when he took one of his father's guns and [...]

By |August 7th, 2017|Categories: Legal updates|

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS STOP AND ARREST BASED ON COLLECTIVE KNOWLEDGE

©2017 Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (www.llrmi.com) On April 10, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided United States v. Hogan[i], which serves as an excellent review of the law pertaining to collective knowledge of multiple officers being used to justify a stop and arrest. The relevant facts of Hogan, taken directly from the case, are as follows: In June 2013, Detective Greg Schnupp, a detective with the Montgomery Police Department ("MPD"), was investigating a group of armed-home-invasion robberies. Following one of the robberies, MPD canvassed the victim's neighborhood and a neighbor reported having seen a white [...]

By |August 7th, 2017|Categories: Legal updates|

FIFTH CIRCUIT DENIES IMMUNITY FOR OFFICER IN STOP, ARREST AND FORCE CASE

©2017 Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (www.llrmi.com) On April 18, 2017, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Alexander v. Garza et al.[i], in which the court discussed the whether an officer was entitled to qualified immunity for the stop, arrest, and use of force against Alexander. It is important to note that the facts of this case, at the qualified immunity stage of the litigation, must be viewed by the court in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. As such, evidence obtained during the later stages of the litigation may change the facts from the [...]

By |August 7th, 2017|Categories: Legal updates|

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DISCUSSES KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE AND DEADLY FORCE

©2017 Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (www.llrmi.com) On May 17, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Santana v. Miami-Dade County et al.[i], in which the court discussed the Fourth Amendment as it relates to the knock and announce requirement when executing search warrants and the use of deadly force. In summary, the initial relevant facts of Santana begin in February of 2012, when a confidential informant told Miami-Dade Detective Correa that marijuana was being sold at the residence of Michael Santana. Detective Correa conducted surveillance and observed activity consistent with drug activity, such as numerous cars stopping [...]

By |August 7th, 2017|Categories: Legal updates|

REMOVING A DRUNK DRIVER FROM CAR VS. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

©2017 Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (www.llrmi.com) On May 5, 2017, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Boude v. Heady et al.[i], in which the court discussed whether an officer violated the Fourth Amendment when he forcibly removed Boude, who was intoxicated, from the driver’s seat of her car. The relevant facts of Boude, taken directly from the case, are as follows: Boude was addicted to huffing aerosol spray cans, which intoxicated her. On March 17, 2012, Raymore Police Officer Joseph German was dispatched to "check on a person in their vehicle" in the parking lot of [...]

By |August 7th, 2017|Categories: Legal updates|
Go to Top