©2017 Jack Ryan, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (www.llrmi.com) One of the areas where there has been disagreement among the various United States Court of Appeals is how deadly force will be analyzed, particularly as it relates to what is often referred to as pre-shooting conduct. Some of the Circuits take what this author refers to as a pure moment in time approach, which looks to whether the officer was faced with a threat of serious bodily harm or dearth at the moment he or she pulled the trigger. In such a case the shooting is reasonable. Other circuits [...]

©2017 Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (www.llrmi.com) On January 4, 2017, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals of decided Pegg v. Herrnberger[i], in which the court discussed the Fourth Amendment as it relates to false arrest, minor offenses, and excessive force. The relevant facts of Pegg, taken directly from the case, are as follows: On August 4, 2013, Herrnberger and another trooper, William Beck, were examining an abandoned vehicle on the side of the road when Brandon Pegg drove by slowly in his truck with the driver's side window open. Herrnberger noticed the truck had an expired inspection [...]

©2017 Jack Ryan, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (www.llrmi.com) Applying the Graham factors to a medical emergency “is equivalent to a baseball player entering the batter’s box with two strikes already against him.” In Estate of Corey Hill v. Miracle[i], the United States Court of Appeals considered the proper analysis of use of force in a case where the officer was not making an arrest, but instead used his TASER in the drive-stun mode in an effort to control a subject who was in need of medical assistance but was fighting the EMTs efforts to provide the assistance. At the outset, the [...]

2017 Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (www.llrmi.com) On January 19, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals of decided May v. City of Hahunta et al.[i] , in which the court discussed the Fourth Amendment and how it is implicated during an involuntary transport for a mental health examination. The relevant facts of May, taken directly from the case, are as follows: The events preceding the underlying action took place on August 3, 2011. After a taxing few days taking care of her Alzheimer-stricken mother, May fell into a deep sleep. At the time, May was the sole [...]

©2017 Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (www.llrmi.com) On January 23, 2017, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of decided Heaney v. Roberts et al.[i] , in which the court discussed the Constitutional legalities pertaining to ejecting a person from a public meeting. The relevant facts of Heaney, taken directly from the case, are as follows: On September 18, 2013, Tom Heaney attended a regularly scheduled Jefferson Parish council meeting in Gretna, Louisiana. In accordance with council rules, Heaney registered to speak during the time allowed for public comment. The rules allowed each registered speaker five minutes to address [...]

©2017 Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (www.llrmi.com) On January 5, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals of decided Clark v. Bowcutt et al.[i] , in which the court decided whether it was reasonable for an officer to shoot and kill a fleeing driver after the officer stepped in front of the suspect’s car. The relevant facts of Clark, taken directly from the case, are as follows: On the evening of October 26, 2012, Deputy Bowcutt was on duty, driving eastbound on Utah State Route 13 in a marked patrol truck. Deputy Bowcutt observed what appeared to be [...]