PATC Articles Feed

NARCOTICS / SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT UNIT CONTROL AND AUDITS

Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:35:20 -0400

©2010 Stephen Campbell, Steve Rothlein, Lou Reiter, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (LLRMI.COM) It is almost becoming a common occurrence when the news reports that some law enforcement special unit’s personnel are indicted or being investigated for criminal misconduct. These types of special units come in various forms and names: HIDTA, street crime, narcotic enforcement, special enforcement, FLEX, CRASH, etc.

The common thread for the misconduct can be traced back to four factors. First, and the least common, is that the members of these units are simply criminals carrying a badge. Second, and probably more common, is that these officers are engaging in what they believe is “noble cause” and that cutting corners is okay if the bad guys are taken off the street. Another motivator with some units is the pressure to produce whether it’s in seizures or arrests. The last factor, and the thrust of this article, is that supervisory and agency control and audit functions are either not being used or are ineffective.

PATC Instructor Stan B. Walters Designated Certified Speaking Professional (CSP)

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:56:48 -0400

(August 19, 2010) — Stan B. Walters, expert in interview and interrogation and an instructor for PATC for more than twenty years, has earned the Certified Speaking Professional (CSP) designation. Established in 1980, the CSP is the speaking profession’s international measure of speaking experience and skill. Fewer than 10% of the speakers worldwide who belong to the Global Speakers Federation hold this prestigious professional designation.

Continue Reading: http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/swalters_csp.shtml

DOES A MINIMAL DELAY AFTER CONCLUSION OF A TRAFFIC STOP MANDATE EVIDENCE SUPPRESSION?

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:48:16 -0400

Law enforcement officers are tasked with ferreting out criminal activity in the community in which they police. One such tactic used toward this goal is traffic enforcement. Traffic violations are an excellent, legal reason to stop a person and check their driver’s license status and whether they have any outstanding warrants, all the while speaking with the vehicle occupants. Additionally, officers can often obtain consent to search a vehicle after converting the traffic stop into a consensual encounter. However, if an officer unreasonably detains a person after the conclusion of the traffic stop, without additional reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, any evidence obtained will often, but not always, be suppressed. The recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case of the United States v. Norwood, illustrates this point.

First Amendment Meets the Confederate Flag at Public School

Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:24:40 -0400

First Amendment Meets the Confederate Flag at Public School: School officials are frequently required to make quick decisions regarding violations of school dress codes. Fortunately, the courts have provided a fair amount of case law to assist school officials in the decision making process.

Read Complete Decision and Article Online: http://llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/confederate_flag_at_school.shtml

2nd Circuit, U.S. v. Harrison - Traffic Stops, Consent and Questions Unrelated to the Stop

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:10:47 -0400

©2010 Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (llrmi.com),

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided the United States v. Harrison , which serves as an excellent review of the rules that relate to the questioning of vehicle occupants during a traffic stop.
Read Complete Decision and Article Online: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/2nd_harrison_2010.shtml

Firearms in Public and Reasonable Suspicion (8th Cir. U.S. v. Jones)

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:09:15 -0400

©2010 Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute, (llrmi.com), 8th Cir. United States v. Jones, Decided June 8, 2010.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided the United States v. Jones which serves as a review of the legal requirements to initiate a stop and frisk. The case involves a pedestrian stopped by law enforcement for suspicion of carrying a firearm.

Read Complete Decision and Article Online: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/fraternization.shtml

Nepotism and Fraternization Within Public Safety Agencies

Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:24:40 -0400

©2010 Lou Reiter, Co-Director, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (llrmi.com). Recently LLRMI/PATC polled members of the Public Safety community on issues of nepotism and fraternization within their agencies. Within one week over 2700 responses were received - comprised of 48 percent supervisors, 40 percent first-level law enforcement officers, five (5) percent firefighters and EMS personnel, and the remainder from various sources.

Read Complete Decision and Article Online: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/fraternization.shtml

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Bryan v. McPherson TASER® Case Re-visited

Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:07:38 -0400

©2010 Jack Ryan, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (llrmi.com), Bryan v. MacPherson, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 12511 (June 18, 2010)

A case which got tremendous media attention when first issued by the United States Court of Appeals in December of 2009 has gotten virtually no attention since the re-hearing and new opinion was issued June 18th 2010. While the re-hearing did not change the court’s opinion on the TASER® as an intermediate weapon that must be justified in its use by a strong government interest, it did change the outcome of this case. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has concluded that the law was not clearly established when Officer MacPherson used his TASER® with respect to the TASER® application.

Read Complete Decision and Article Online: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/taser_9th_2010.shtml

Use of Force: Pre-Shooting Conduct and Suicide by Cop Cases

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:33:10 -0400

©2010 Jack Ryan, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute (llrmi.com). Two of the more significant issues when dealing with law enforcement’s use of deadly force are first, how will the court analyze the totality of circumstances, and second, how does the mental state of the person law enforcement is dealing with impact the use of force decision?

In Graham v. Connor the United States Supreme Court held: "The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." In Tennessee v. Garner, the Court held that all Fourth Amendment seizures are judged by a "totality of circumstances." Putting these two standards together it becomes clear that a court must review an officer’s use of force by the Totality of circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

Read Complete Decision and Article Online: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/uof_jr2010.shtml

From the U.S. Supreme Court June 17, 2010: Search of Officer's Text Messages... Reasonable

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:53:53 -0400

©2010 Lou Reiter, Jack Ryan, J.D., Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute, (llrmi.com). U.S. Supreme Court, City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S.___ Slip op. 08-1332 (2010), Decided June 17, 2010

IMPORTANT POINTS TO CONSIDER

An express policy notifying employees of monitoring as well as expressly indicating that employees have no right to privacy or confidentiality with respect to resources provided by the agency such as phones, computers, pagers etc. will enhance the defensibility of any agency search

Police departments must keep abreast of the changing media and communication devices. The policies must be broad enough to cover all of these communication devices including cell phones, texting devices, cell phone video and photographic sources, social network sites, and personal computers. Any device that an employee uses in relationship to his/her job, during the job, or at the station or in the police vehicle should be covered.

Read Complete Decision and Article Online: http://llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/us2010_quon.shtml

Is Individualized Suspicion Needed for Strip Searches in Schools? (6th Circuit: 6th Circuit: Knisley v. Pike...)

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:20:17 -0400

In 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided Safford Unified School District v. Redding, which set forth the standard for an objectively reasonable strip search in the school environment. In Redding, the United States Supreme Court indicated that to have a constitutionally reasonable strip search of a student, the school official must have specific, articulable facts that indicate that a student is presently (1) hiding evidence/contraband beneath his/her underwear and (2) that the contraband or evidence rises to a level of dangerousness that would justify the intrusive nature of a strip search.

In Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided Knisley v. Pike County Joint Vocational School District, which considered the impact of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Redding.

READ COMPLETE ARTICLE ONLINE: http://llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/6th_knisley_pike.shtml

Immigration Enforcement and the Exclusionary Rule

Wed, 9 Jun 2010 09:52:07 -0400

©2010 Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute, (llrmi.com), Lately, much debate is taking place regarding immigration enforcement. Further, much of this debate is centered on the active role local law enforcement agencies are taking in immigration enforcement pursuant to state law, such as in Arizona, and participation in a federal program typically called Section 287(g). Although this is a current topic, the United States Supreme Court decided in 1984 the Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza et al.,i which is instructive to local law enforcement agencies and officers involved in immigration enforcement.

READ COMPLETE ARTICLE ONLINE: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/immigration_exclusion.shtml

U.S. Supreme Court June 1, 2010: Invocation of Right to Remain Silent Must Be Unambiguous

Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:03:52 -0400

©2010 Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute, Berghuis v. Thompkins, U.S. Supreme Court, decided June 1, 2010.

Under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, a suspect has three options when faced with a custodial police interrogation: (1) the suspect can invoke his right to counsel, (2) the suspect can invoke his right to remain silent, or (3) the suspect can waive his rights and speak to the police. In 1994, in Davis v. United States, the Supreme Court held that if a suspect is going to invoke his right to counsel, he must do so "unambiguously." In other words, the suspect must be clear to the police that he does not wish to speak to them without an attorney. In contrast, the Supreme Court has never addressed whether a suspect must be 'unambiguous' if he wishes to invoke his right to silence. However, on June 1, 2010, the Supreme Court decided Berghuis v. Thompkins which directly confronted the issue of whether a suspect must be unambiguous if he wishes to invoke his right to remain silent.

CONTINUE ARTICLE ONLINE:
http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/us10_berghuis_v_thompkins.shtml

Warrantless Searches of Automobile Computer Black Box

Tue, 25 May 2010 09:15:19 -0400

A relatively new vehicle is involved in a serious vehicle crash. Due to sustained damage the vehicle is no longer drivable. The vehicle is towed to a secured police evidence lot. The vehicle is equipped with an item commonly known as a black box. The black box in the vehicle has crash data stored in it..... In your opinion, does Carroll Doctrine apply to warrant a warrantless search? Or, is a search warrant required?

READ COMPLETE RESPONSE ONLINE: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_questions/4-may10.shtml

10th Circuit: Armijo v. Peterson - SCHOOL THREATS, EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND ENTRY INTO PRIVATE PREMISES

Tue, 18 May 2010 13:18:23 -0400

Imagine a case that involved gangs, threats of bombings and shootings at a school, warrantless home entry, and of course a civil rights lawsuit. That is exactly what the school officials and police officers of the Onate High School in Las Cruces, New Mexico were facing in the fall of 2006. Ultimately, this became a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of a student’s rights under the Fourth Amendment. On April 13, 2010, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Armijo v. Peterson, et al.

Complete Article Online: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/10th_armijo_v_peterson.shtml