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

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DISCUSSES FALSE ARREST AND MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

©2016 Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (www.llrmi.com) On September 1, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Arnold-Rogers v. City of Orlando et al[i]. , which serves as an excellent review of the law pertaining to probable cause to arrest, municipal liability and arrests in residences under the Fourth Amendment. The relevant facts of Arnold-Rogers are as follows: Rodriguez and another officer, Jabiel Hernandez, responded to a 911 call placed by Berghuis's wife, Jessica Wood. Berghuis and Wood told the officers that while Wood was driving with Berghuis as a passenger, they encountered Arnold-Rogers in her car. Berghuis [...]

By |November 9th, 2016|Categories: Legal updates|

US SUPREME COURT United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit Decides Limitations on TASER Use

United States Supreme Court Denies Appeal in Fourth Circuit PINEHURST, NC, ET AL. V. ESTATE OF RONALD H. ARMSTRONG (Order 15-1380) October 3, 2016 The United States Supreme Court denied issuance of a Writ of Certiorari in the Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst case from the Fourth Circuit thereby leaving the restrictions on use of the TASER to cases of immediate danger in place for jurisdictions within the Fourth Circuit. The following is a reprint of our summary of the Fourth Circuit’s decision: TASER Use on Mentally Impaired Subject in 4th Circuit Estate of Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst et [...]

By |October 27th, 2016|Categories: Legal updates|

SEVENTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS USE OF SUBPOENA FOR IP ADDRESS INFO

On August 17, 2016, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Caira [i] , in which they examined whether the use of a subpoena, rather than a warrant, to obtain IP login information and location was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The relevant facts of Caira, taken directly from the case, are as follows: Between July and September 2008, emails were sent from [email protected] to an email address associated with a website hosted in Vietnam. The emails asked about buying sassafras oil, an ingredient in ecstasy. The DEA, which had been monitoring the website, sent an administrative subpoena to [...]

By |October 23rd, 2016|Categories: Legal updates|

SIXTH CIRCUIT DISCUSSES HANDCUFFING AND EXCESSIVE FORCE

On August 16, 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Getz v. Swoap et. al[1] , in which they examined whether an officer’s use of handcuffs on an arrestee constituted a Fourth Amendment violation. At the outset of the opinion, District Judge Cleland made a statement that rings particularly true in today’s politically charged atmosphere that surrounds opposition to law enforcement. Judge Celand began the opinion by stating This Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arises from the familiar setting of an interaction between an officer and an angry, uncooperative citizen. The facts illustrate yet again why it [...]

By |October 17th, 2016|Categories: Legal updates|

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DISCUSSES PROBABLE CAUSE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT

On August 9, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Carr v. Cadeau[i] , in which they examined the issues of arguable probable cause to arrest and First Amendment protected speech. The relevant facts of Carr, taken directly from the case, are as follows: Carr and Gibson live in the Castleberry Hill neighborhood of downtown Atlanta. On the evening of October 5, 2013, the street in front of their home was closed to car traffic for a public arts event called the Flux Festival. The City of Atlanta had granted a permit for the event and arranged for off-duty police officers to [...]

By |October 15th, 2016|Categories: Legal updates|

USE OF RESTRAINT CHAIRS

A number of lawsuits leading to jury findings as well as settlements with respect to the use of restraint chairs in jails have occurred over the last 15 years. Many of these cases involve arguments that the chairs were used in a manner that were contrary to the manufacturer’s warnings or that the subjects were not properly monitored during the restraint. Manufacturers of these chairs include numerous warnings to include some of the following:[1] • Use of chair without reading and understanding instructions can lead to serious injury or death. (Anyone using chair should read manufacturer’s instructions) • Never use [...]

By |October 9th, 2016|Categories: Legal updates|
Go to Top