Tag Search Result: U.S. Supreme Court Cases

It will now be possible for law enforcement officers to attempt to obtain a waiver and an admissible statement from a defendant without running afoul of the Sixth Amendment.

After Apr. 19, officers and agencies could incur liability for vehicle searches incident to arrest that do not fall within the Gant guidelines.

Officers who fall behind on core training and who stop getting regular updates on recent case law become a civil liability to themselves and their employers.

Although it's common to see the term "stop and frisk," it's possible that there might be justification for a stop, but not for a frisk.

What the exclusionary rule has actually meant in practice is that thousands (maybe millions) of criminals have been able to stop the prosecution from using critical evidence of their guilt to hold them accountable for their crimes. In the famous words of a 1926 court decision, "The criminal goes free because the constable has blundered." (People v. Defore)

Notwithstanding the explosion of youth criminality, the court has largely continued to treat juvenile offenders in a more lenient and paternalistic fashion than adults.

Much of what I learned in basic academy in the late 1960s is no longer good law. If I were still operating on the basis of 40-year-old understandings, I wouldn't be very effective.

"The first duties of the officers of the law are to prevent, not to punish crime. It is not their duty to incite to and create crime for the sole purpose of prosecuting and punishing it." — U.S. Supreme Court, Sorrells v. U.S.

It's not uncommon to hear or read about officer-involved shootings where multiple officers emptied their loads into the suspect and anything within 10 feet of him. Asked about why they opened fire, bystander officers may reply, "When another officer started shooting, I just reflexively started shooting, too."

The general rule-of-thumb is to try to get a warrant whenever possible. On the other hand, if you can seize evidence without engaging in a search, you don't need either a warrant or any exception.

There are four ways to make a lawful entry into a private home. Notice that "entry incident to outdoors arrest" is not on the list of lawful ways to get inside a residence. In three separate cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has held such entries to be unconstitutional.

How many times have you heard the expression "PC for the stop"? How about the application of Miranda once the suspect is "not free to leave?" These are common examples of improper mixing that can undercut the case against a guilty perpetrator.

One of the most troublesome legal issues in law enforcement is the question of when an officer may resume discussions with a suspect after some kind of Miranda "history" has occurred. The answer is, "It all depends."

On average, 60,000 officers are assaulted on the job every year. That's an average of 164 per day. The risk level you face on the job makes it important not only to resist complacency and to follow prudent tactics, but also to understand how to ensure that your interactions with suspects are constitutionally justifiable, so that you are never forced to choose between being safe and being sued.

In the 2007 decision in Brendlin v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court added yet another to a series of Fourth Amendment opinions on the subject of vehicle searches and seizures involving passengers, rather than drivers. Several issues that might arise from police interactions with passengers of vehicles have been addressed by the court.

Any officer who's been involved in a vehicle pursuit that resulted in property damage, bodily injury, or death should be concerned with at least three levels of liability. Departmental discipline may be imposed if the pursuit violates agency policy. Tort liability may be imposed through a lawsuit filed in state court. And plaintiffs may file a federal civil rights lawsuit seeking damages.