US SUPREME COURT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT LAW REGARDING ENTRY ONTO PROPERTY IS NOT CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FOR PURPOSES OF DENYING AN OFFICER QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
|
|
- Sabrina Preston
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 November 2013 Texas Law Enforcement Handbook Monthly Update is published monthly. Copyright P.O. Box 1261, Euless, TX No claim is made regarding the accuracy of official government works or copyright of same. Educational purposes only. Does not constitute legal advice. No reproduction outside TPCA membership without written consent. US Supreme Court US SUPREME COURT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT LAW REGARDING ENTRY ONTO PROPERTY IS NOT CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FOR PURPOSES OF DENYING AN OFFICER QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Issue presented: eligibility for qualified immunity The petitioner, Officer S, had been denied qualified immunity by the US 9 th Circuit in a section 1983 lawsuit. The officer appealed to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court reversed the decision of the 9 th Circuit. At about 1:00 a.m. the police received a call about an unknown disturbance involving a person with a baseball bat. Officer S was familiar with the neighborhood where the call originated and was aware gang violence was a common occurrence. The police responded in marked squad cars wearing full uniforms. As they approached the area the officers saw two men turn into an apartment complex and a third man cross the street and run towards a residence. Officer S got out of his car and shouted for the man to stop. The man looked directly at Officer S but did not comply. Although S did not see a baseball bat, he still believed the man s conduct to be suspicious. Officer S apparently had no knowledge as to whether the man lived at the residence towards which he was running. In fact, the residence belonged to Ms. Sims. The man went through the front gate on the property. The fence enclosed the front yard of the residence and was made of wood and taller than 6 feet. Officer S believed the man had committed an offense by failing to stop when ordered. Officer S kicked open the gate to pursue the man. Unfortunately, Ms. Sims was standing on the other side of the gate and was struck by the gate injuring her shoulder and cutting her forehead.
2 Ms. Sims sued Officer S, alleging that he illegally searched her home without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment [and that search caused her injury]. The trial court granted summary judgment to Officer S, finding: (1) the officer s entry was justified by the potentially dangerous situation, by the need to pursue the suspect as he fled, and by Sims lesser expectation of privacy in the curtilage of her home; and (2) even if a constitutional violation had occurred, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law put him on notice that his conduct was unconstitutional. Sims appealed. The 9 th Circuit reversed. That Court held that: The warrantless entry into Sims yard was unconstitutional because Sims was entitled to the same expectation of privacy in her curtilage as in her home itself, because there was no immediate danger, and because the suspect had committed only the minor offense of disobeying a police officer. The 9 th Circuit went on to hold that Officer S should be denied qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that he was not authorized to make the warrantless entry to arrest for a misdemeanor offense. The Supreme Court accepted the case for review to decide whether or not Officer S was entitled to qualified immunity: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Qualified immunity gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments, and protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. We do not require a case directly on point before concluding that the law is clearly established, but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate. [Internal cites omitted]. The Court established that in order to be denied qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the law on entries into yards for misdemeanor arrests was clearly established and that the officer either knowingly violated that law, or was plainly incompetent. The Court continued its analysis: There is no suggestion in this case that Officer S knowingly violated the Constitution; the question is whether, in light of existing precedent existing at the time, he was plainly incompetent in entering Sims yard to pursue the fleeing [suspect] The Ninth Circuit concluded that he was. It did so despite November
3 the fact that federal and state courts nationwide are sharply divided on the question whether an officer with probable cause to arrest a suspect for a misdemeanor may enter a home without a warrant while in hot pursuit of that suspect. **** Notwithstanding this basic disagreement, the Ninth Circuit below denied [the officer] qualified immunity. In its one-paragraph analysis on the hot pursuit point, the panel relied on two cases, one from this Court, Welsh v. Wisconsin, and one from its own, US v. Johnson. Neither case clearly establishes that [the officer] violated Sims Fourth Amendment rights. The Court summarized its decision in the Welsh case: In Welsh, police officers learned from a witness that Edward Welsh had driven his car off the road and then left the scene, presumably because he was drunk. Acting on that tip, the officers went to Welsh s home without a warrant, entered without consent, and arrested him for driving while intoxicated a nonjailable traffic offense under state law Our opinion first noted our precedent holding that hot pursuit of a fleeing felon justifies an officer s warrantless entry But we rejected the suggestion that the hot pursuit exception applied: there was no immediate or continuous pursuit of [Welsh] from the scene of a crime. We went on to conclude that the officers entry violated the Fourth Amendment, finding it important that there [was] probable cause to believe that only a minor offense ha[d] been committed. In those circumstances, we said, application of the exigent circumstances exception in the context of a home entry should rarely be sanctioned. But we did not lay down a categorical rule for all cases involving minor offenses, saying only that a warrant is usually required The Court also discussed the Johnson case, but that analysis is not included here. The Court then summed up its discussion of Welsh in the context of warrantless entries: In concluding - as it must have - that the [the officer] was plainly incompetent the Ninth Circuit below read Welsh far too broadly. First, both of those cases [Welsh November
4 and Johnson] cited Santana [another case on felony hot pursuit] with approval, a case that approved an officer s warrantless entry while in hot pursuit. And though Santana involved a felony suspect, we did not expressly limit our holding based on that fact Second, to repeat, Neither Welsh nor Johnson involved hot pursuit Thus, despite our emphasis in Welsh on the fact that the crime at issue was minor indeed, a mere nonjailable civil offense nothing in the opinion establishes that the seriousness of the crime is equally important in cases of hot pursuit. Third, even in the portion of Welsh cited by the Ninth Circuit below, our opinion is equivocal: We held not that warrantless entry to arrest a misdemeanant is never justified, but only that such entry should be rare. The Supreme Court went on to discuss the confusion in the courts across the country about the issue of warrantless entry to make a misdemeanor arrest. The Court then summed up its discussion as to whether Officer S was plainly incompetent when he entered Sims yard without a warrant: To summarize the law at the time [the officer] made his split-second decision to enter Sims yard: Two opinions of this Court were equivocal on the lawfulness of his entry; two opinions of the State Court of Appeal affirmatively authorized the entry; the most relevant opinion of the Ninth Circuit was readily distinguishable; two Federal District Courts in the Ninth Circuit had granted qualified immunity in the wake of that opinion; and the federal and state courts of last resort around the nation were sharply divided. The Court determined that the law on this issue was not so clearly established to render the officer s decision to enter as one that was plainly incompetent: [S] may have been mistaken in believing his actions were justified, but he was not plainly incompetent. It should also be noted that the Court did not render a decision as to whether the entry itself was constitutional. Stanton v. Sims, NO (U.S. Supreme Court, 11/4/13) Commentary: The issue of the lawfulness of a warrantless entry to make a misdemeanor arrest generates much discussion. The case discussed above is important. First, the Supreme Court itself acknowledges that the case law on the issue is not clearly November
5 established that courts across the country are divided on the issue. Secondly, the case seems to indicate there is something different if the entry is part of hot pursuit of the misdemeanant. Unfortunately, the Court declined this opportunity to clarify when entries to make misdemeanor arrests violate the Fourth Amendment. It may well be that the more serious the nature of the misdemeanor crime, coupled with the immediate pursuit of the offender, will eventually become the standard for warrantless misdemeanor arrest entries. Court of Criminal Appeals WARRANTLESS ENTRY TO FIRE SCENE WAS CONSTITUTIONAL; STATEMENT FROM SUSPECT WAS NOT THE PRODUCT OF CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION Issue presented: Miranda requirements; warrantless search of fire scene The appellant was convicted of two murders during the same criminal transaction. He was sentenced to death. His case was appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court affirmed his conviction. On December 18 th emergency personnel responded to a fire call. Once there the fire was extinguished and the bodies of the three victims were found inside the house [appellant was only tried for two murders]. The victims were stabbed and beaten to death and the fire was set after their deaths. The appellant approached the police at the scene of the fire and asked if everyone inside made it out. The appellant told the police he lived at the house with his pregnant wife, daughter and father-in-law. As the police spoke with him he just sat there with his head in his hands and he did not cry. The police asked him where he had been and he told them he had gone to the store to check prices for Christmas gifts. The police asked the appellant if he would come to the station and give them a statement. He agreed to do so and followed the police to the station in his own vehicle. Once at the station the police noticed what appeared to be blood on his clothing and the appellant agreed to give the police his clothes in exchange for fresh clothing and he also consented to a search of his vehicle. While he changed clothes one officer noted blood on the bottom of his sock and scratches on his back. Appellant left the police station, drove to work, collected his check and then disappeared. Two days later he was located in San Diego California, crossing the border from Mexico in the U.S. A computer check indicated he was armed and dangerous and should be detained. He was taken to the San Diego jail. Two officers from Texas went to San Diego and interviewed him. He confessed to the crimes. Appellant argued that the first statement he gave at the police station shortly after the fire should have been suppressed, since it was given without November
6 benefit of Miranda, and, argued the appellant, he was in custody at the time. The Court stated the basic components of the Miranda issue: The warnings required by Miranda and Article are intended to safeguard a person s privilege against selfincrimination during custodial interrogation This Court has found four general situations that may constitute custody for purposes of Miranda and Article 38.22: (1) The suspect is physically deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way; (2) A law enforcement officer tells the suspect he is not free to leave; (3) Law enforcement officers create a situation that would lead a reasonable person to believe that his freedom of movement has been significantly restricted; and (4) There is probable cause to arrest the suspect, and law enforcement officers do not tell the suspect he is free to leave. In this case the Court noted the following: the appellant voluntarily agreed to leave the scene and go to the police department; the police told the appellant he could drive himself there in his own car; the police only considered him a witness at this point; although the officers suspicions were aroused during the interview, the appellant was specifically told he was not under arrest; the appellant was allowed to leave the police station after talking to them; while at the police station the appellant took multiple breaks to use the bathroom and smoke cigarettes; the appellant was given aspirin when he complained of a headache; when the appellant delivered his clothes to the police and one officer read him his Miranda warning [after some time] he was told he was not under arrest. During his time at the station the appellant was cooperative and never voiced any objections about writing his statement or providing his clothes for testing. The appellant argued that he was subjected to repeated coercive efforts of the officers to persuade and induce [him] into making a statement. The Court noted that the officers were suspicious of appellant s answers and tried to persuade him to tell the truth, but we [the Court] are unable to conclude that a reasonable person in these circumstances would believe he was not free to leave. Accordingly, the Court ruled the interview in Texas was proper because the appellant was not in custody at the time. The appellant also argued that his statement in Texas was the fruit of an illegal search, i.e. when the fire and police personnel searched his home that had been damaged in the fire without a warrant. The Court stated: November
7 [A] burning building creates an exigency that justifies a warrantless entry by fire officials to fight the blaze Once in the building, officials need no warrant to remain for a reasonable time to investigate the cause of the blaze after it has been extinguished. The aftermath of a fire often presents exigencies that will not tolerate the delay necessary to obtain a warrant. [Internal cites omitted]. Hummel v. State, NO. AP-76,956 (Tex. Crim. App. 11/20/13) (not designated for publication) Having established that a burning building creates an exigency that excuses a warrant, the Court stated: We disagree with appellant s contention that his statements are the fruit of an illegal search. The record reflects that: (1) firefighters entered the residence to fight the blaze; (2) hazardous conditions persisted when [emergency personnel] entered to investigate the cause and origin of the fire; (3) [fire personnel] believed that immediate investigation was necessary to preserve evidence from further destruction; and (4) firefighters continued to extinguish hot spots throughout the day and evening. The warrantless entries at issue were justified under these circumstances. November
Issue presented: application of statute regarding warrantless blood draws. November 2014
November 2014 Texas Law Enforcement Handbook Monthly Update is published monthly. Copyright 2014. P.O. Box 1261, Euless, TX 76039. No claim is made regarding the accuracy of official government works or
More informationAPPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Oconto County: MICHAEL T. JUDGE, Judge. Affirmed. Before Hoover, P.J., Peterson and Brunner, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED September 28, 2010 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will
More informationREGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS
May 2015 Texas Law Enforcement Handbook Monthly Update is published monthly. Copyright 2015. P.O. Box 1261, Euless, TX 76039. No claim is made regarding the accuracy of official government works or copyright
More informationv No Kent Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 17, 2017 v No. 333827 Kent Circuit Court JENNIFER MARIE HAMMERLUND, LC
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Criminal Law/Criminal Procedure And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Deft saw
More informationTHE LAW PROFESSOR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ESSAY SERIES ESSAY QUESTION
THE LAW PROFESSOR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ESSAY SERIES ESSAY QUESTION #1 Officer Jones was notified by Oscar, a police informant, that Jeremy had robbed the jewelry store two hours earlier. Jeremy was reported
More informationState of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County: v. Case No. 2008CF000567
State of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2008CF000567 Miguel Ayala, and Carlos Gonzales, Defendant. Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized as a Result
More informationSAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE
SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE DATE: MARCH 1, 2013 NUMBER: SUBJECT: RELATED POLICY: ORIGINATING DIVISION: 4.03 LEGAL ADMONITION PROCEDURES N/A INVESTIGATIONS II NEW PROCEDURE: PROCEDURAL CHANGE:
More informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN : CIRCUIT COURT : BROWN COUNTY. vs. Case No. 12 CF BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
STATE OF WISCONSIN : CIRCUIT COURT : BROWN COUNTY STATE OF WISCONSIN, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 12 CF 000000 JOHN DOE, Defendant. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE THE DEFENDANT, John Doe,
More informationMarquette University Police Department
Marquette University Police Department Policy and Procedure Manual Policy: 4.2 Issued: May 1, 2015 Date Revised: N/A WILEAG Standards: 1.6.1, 1.7.4, 1.7.5, 1.7.6 IACLEA Standards: 2.2.2, 2.2.3 4.2.00 Purpose
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 28, 2017 v No. 335272 Ottawa Circuit Court MAX THOMAS PRZYSUCHA, LC No. 16-040340-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 18, 2014 v No. 317502 Washtenaw Circuit Court THOMAS CLINTON LEFREE, LC No. 12-000929-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 15 2397 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. LANCE SLIZEWSKI, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court
More informationI. PURPOSE DEFINITIONS RESPECT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Page 1 of 8
Policy Title: Search, Apprehension and Arrest Accreditation Reference: Effective Date: February 25, 2015 Review Date: Supercedes: Policy Number: 6.05 Pages: 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 2.1.3, 2.1.7, 2.5.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.4
More informationORDER TYPE: NEED TO KNOW. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to define legal implications and procedures involved when a search is performed.
Page 1 of 5 YALE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDERS Serving with Integrity, Trust, Commitment and Courage Since 1894 ORDER TYPE: NEED TO KNOW 312 EFFECTIVE DATE: REVIEW DATE: 19 MAR 2012 ANNUAL
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,132 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DIANA COCKRELL, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,132 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. DIANA COCKRELL, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Johnson District Court;
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, HOWARD WILLIAM AMOS DOB: 07/06/1980 1212 S 9TH ST Minneapolis, MN 55404 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0793-13T1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 29,570. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY Gary L. Clingman, District Judge
0 0 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that
More informationTEXARKANA, TEXAS POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDERS MANUAL. Amended Date November 1, 2015
Effective Date February 1, 2008 Reference Amended Date November 1, 2015 Distribution All Personnel City Manager City Attorney TPCA Best Practices Recognition Program Reference Review Date January 1, 2017
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges McClanahan, Petty and Beales Argued at Salem, Virginia TERRY JOE LYLE MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0121-07-3 JUDGE WILLIAM G. PETTY APRIL 29, 2008
More informationAPPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: TIMOTHY G. DUGAN, Judge. Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED September 3, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear
More informationThe State of South Carolina OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. April 21, 1998
The State of South Carolina OFFCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CHARLES M OL ONY C ONDON ATTORN EY GENERAL Sheriff, Newberry County Post Office Box 247 Newberry, South Carolina 29108 Re: nformal Opinion Dear
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 16, 2012 v No. 301461 Kent Circuit Court JEFFREY LYNN MALMBERG, LC No. 10-003346-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 3:08-cv LC-EMT
[DO NOT PUBLISH] ROGER A. FESTA, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-11526 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 3:08-cv-00140-LC-EMT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 20, 2015 v No. 327393 Wayne Circuit Court ROKSANA GABRIELA SIKORSKI, LC No. 15-001059-FJ Defendant-Appellee.
More informationPOLICE AND THE LAW USE OF FORCE
POLICE AND THE LAW USE OF FORCE OBJECTIVE BASIS Allows for informal decision making BUT Formal requirements of the U.S. Constitution Controls formal criminal justice process Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth
More informationNo. 103,358 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, ABBY L. RALSTON, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 103,358 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ABBY L. RALSTON, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Whether a defendant has abandoned property is an issue of standing.
More informationChapter 4. Criminal Law and Procedure
Chapter 4 Criminal Law and Procedure Section 1 Criminal Law GOALS Understand the 3 elements that make up a criminal act Classify crimes according to the severity of their potential sentences Identify the
More informationCopr. West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
681 A.2d 1248 Page 1 Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County. STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. Lucio D. LIBERATORE, Defendant. Decided Sept. 14, 1995. Opinion Filed Aug. 15, 1996. Defendant
More informationCITY OF ONALASKA POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY OF ONALASKA POLICE DEPARTMENT Policy: Arrest Procedures Policy # 17 Pages: 13 Approved by F & P Committee: 04/02/11 Approved by Common Council: 04/08/11 Initial Issue Date: 01/31/98 Revised dates:
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 19, 2008
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 19, 2008 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JEREMY W. MEEKS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Grundy County No. 3948 Buddy Perry,
More informationTeaching Materials/Case Summary
Monday, September 24 th, 2012 Rangel v. State, Cause No. 05-11-00604-CR Fifth District Court of Appeals Teaching Materials/Case Summary The Facts.. 2 The Trial Court Proceeding. 2 The Appeal...2 The Attorneys..3
More information2017 CO 100. In this interlocutory appeal, the supreme court concludes that the conversation
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationFOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 9, 2012 MARIA RIOS, on her behalf and on behalf of her minor son D.R., Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
More informationOF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2001
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2001 RICHARD MOODY, SR., ** KATHLEEN MOODY, RICHARD
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STATE OF KANSAS - PETITIONER VS. LUIS A. AGUIRRE - RESPONDENT
No. 15-374 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STATE OF KANSAS - PETITIONER VS. LUIS A. AGUIRRE - RESPONDENT On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
More informationPOLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND RULES
FAYETTEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND RULES Subject: 1.2.1 Limits of Authority Effective Date: November 15, 2016 Reference: 41.2.7, 71.1.1, AR 12-9-102 Version:
More informationCHAPTER 17 - ARREST POLICIES Alternatives to Arrest and Incarceration Criminal Process Immigration Violations
CHAPTER 17 - ARREST POLICIES 17.1 - Alternatives to Arrest and Incarceration 17.2 - Criminal Process 17.3 - Immigration Violations GARDEN GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDER 17.1 Effective Date: January
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas DISSENTING OPINION No. The STATE of Texas, Appellant v. Lauro Eduardo RUIZ, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No.
More informationDELMAR POLICE DEPARTMENT
DELMAR POLICE DEPARTMENT Policy 7.4 Searches Without a Warrant Effective Date: 05/01/15 Replaces: 2-5 Approved: Ivan Barkley Chief of Police Reference: DPAC: 1.2.3 I. POLICY In order to ensure that constitutional
More informationProbable Cause Determinations
Probable Cause Determinations Warrantless Arrests A magistrate must determine if probable cause exists to believe that a person who was arrested without a warrant committed the offense he/she was arrested
More informationDEFINITIONS. Accuse To bring a formal charge against a person, to the effect that he is guilty of a crime or punishable offense.
DEFINITIONS Words and Phrases The following words and phrases have the meanings indicated when used in this chapter according to Black s Law Dictionary, common dictionary, and/or are distinctive to law
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2009-NMSC-026 Filing Date: May 26, 2009 Docket No. 31,097 CITY OF LAS CRUCES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEVEN SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellee.
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 10, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D13-1796 Lower Tribunal No. 12-3833 The State of
More informationCHAPTER 8: JUSTIFICATIONS INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 8: JUSTIFICATIONS INTRODUCTION Defenses can be broken down into types. First are defenses specified in the Texas Penal Code (TPC) that apply only to certain specific offenses. For instance, the
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 16-3970 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAJUAN KEY, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court
More informationNo. 101,851 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, BRIAN E. KERESTESSY, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 101,851 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. BRIAN E. KERESTESSY, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. When considering a trial court's ruling on a motion to
More information2017 Case Law Update
2017 Case Law Update A 17-102 04/24/2017 Fourth Amendment: Detention based on taking an individual's driver license People v. Linn (2015) 241 Cal. App. 4th 46 Rule: An officer's taking of a voluntarily
More informationNUMBER CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
NUMBER 13-15-00089-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ROBERTO SAVEDRA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 24th District Court of Jackson
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 15, 2006 v No. 259193 Washtenaw Circuit Court ERIC JOHN BOLDISZAR, LC No. 02-001366-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationAugust 24, 2015 PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 24, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court NICOLE ATTOCKNIE, personal representative of
More informationv No St. Clair Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 30, 2018 v No. 337354 St. Clair Circuit Court RICKY EDWARDS, LC No. 16-002145-FH
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
No. 131 March 25, 2015 41 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT DARNELL BOYD, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 201026332; A151157
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 2000 Session. STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROSALIND MARIE JOHNSON and DONNA YVETTE McCOY
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 2000 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROSALIND MARIE JOHNSON and DONNA YVETTE McCOY Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County Nos.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 540 U. S. (2003) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 31, 2003 v No. 235191 Calhoun Circuit Court CURTIS JOHN-LEE BANKS, LC No. 00-002668-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationTHE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND
10 THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND THE RULE OF LAW AND THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE SEARCHES WITHOUT WARRANTS DIVIDER 10 Honorable Mark J. McGinnis OBJECTIVES: After this session, you will be able
More informationCASE NO. 1D Joseph Christopher Acoff was convicted after a jury trial of leaving the scene
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JOSEPH CHRISTOPHER ACOFF, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc. v. ) No. SC APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT OF LAWRENCE COUNTY Honorable Jack A.L.
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc ) Opinion issued December 6, 2016 STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. SC95613 ) DAVID K. HOLMAN, ) ) Respondent. ) APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT OF LAWRENCE COUNTY
More informationIn the Third Court of Appeals Austin, Texas ROBERT TORRES, Appellant, STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 03~14-00541-CR ACCEPTED 03-14-00541-CR 4106716 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/11/2015 11:56:26 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK In the Third Court of Appeals Austin, Texas FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS
More informationKAUPP v. TEXAS. on petition for writ of certiorari to the court of appeals of texas, fourteenth district
626 OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus KAUPP v. TEXAS on petition for writ of certiorari to the court of appeals of texas, fourteenth district No. 02 5636. Decided May 5, 2003 After petitioner Kaupp, then 17,
More informationTHE MYTH OF COMPELLED PUBLIC SAFETY STATEMENTS
COVER STORY PORAC Law Enforcement News Published November, 2005 THE MYTH OF COMPELLED PUBLIC SAFETY STATEMENTS By Richard L. Pinckard Bobbitt, Pinckard & Fields Our office was recently informed that a
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 547 U. S. (2006) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationJuly 16, Opinion No. JM-751
ax XATTOX A-N&Y O&XERAI. July 16, 1987 Honorable Gary E. Kersey Kerr County Attorney 317 Earl Garrett Kerrville, Texas 78028 Opinion No. JM-751 lt.2: Constitutionality of certain portions of article 14.03
More informationThe Fourth Amendment places certain restrictions on when and how searches and seizures
Handout 1.4: Search Me in Public General Fourth Amendment Information The Fourth Amendment places certain restrictions on when and how searches and seizures can be conducted. The Fourth Amendment only
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT INDEPENDENCE
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT INDEPENDENCE POLICE NO. : 18-068740 PROSECUTOR NO. : 095448116 OCN: AN018166 STATE OF MISSOURI, ) PLAINTIFF, ) vs. ) ) DAVID A HARRIS ) 7305 S Morris
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : vs. : NO. 013 CR 10 : PAUL G. HERMAN, : Defendant : James M. Lavelle, Esquire Assistant District
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 19, 2010 APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION March 9, 2010 9:10 a.m. v No. 289330 Eaton Circuit Court LINDA
More informationBLOOD TESTS SINCE MCNEELY by Walter I. Butch Jenkins III Thigpen and Jenkins, LLP. Biscoe, NC INTRODUCTION
BLOOD TESTS SINCE MCNEELY by Walter I. Butch Jenkins III Thigpen and Jenkins, LLP. Biscoe, NC INTRODUCTION Defending a driving while impaired case is a daunting task in itself. When the State has a blood
More informationSubject DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. 1 July By Order of the Police Commissioner
Policy 711 Subject DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Date Published Page 1 July 2016 1 of 12 By Order of the Police Commissioner POLICY Consistent with Maryland law, violence between current or former spouses or intimate
More informationSubject ARSON INVESTIGATIONS. 1 July By Order of the Police Commissioner
Policy 721 Subject ARSON INVESTIGATIONS Date Published Page 1 July 2016 1 of 8 By Order of the Police Commissioner POLICY It is the policy of the Baltimore Police Department (BPD), consistent with the
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 16, 2001 v No. 214253 Oakland Circuit Court TIMMY ORLANDO COLLIER, LC No. 98-158327-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More information126 December 2, 2015 No. 539 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
126 December 2, 2015 No. 539 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of C. S., a Child. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. C. S., Appellant. Lake County Circuit Court 120011JV; Petition
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, YEVGENIY SAVENOK DOB: 08/07/1985 17190 PARK CIRCLE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55346 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationIn the Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CT X IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 18. September Term, 2005 WENDELL HACKLEY
In the Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CT 02-0154X IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 18 September Term, 2005 WENDELL HACKLEY v. STATE OF MARYLAND Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell
More informationSTATE OF VERMONT. Docket No Vtec DECISION ON MOTION. ANR v. Donald Shattuck
SUPERIOR COURT ANR v. Donald Shattuck STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Docket No. 81-7-16 Vtec DECISION ON MOTION This is an enforcement action by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources ( ANR )
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2010 ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D09-1978 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed May 28, 2010 Appeal
More informationNo. 102,369 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, KENNETH S. GOFF, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 102,369 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. KENNETH S. GOFF, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. If an officer detects the odor of raw marijuana emanating from
More informationCourt of Appeals. Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO. 09-07-015 CR JIMMY WAYNE SPANN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 410th District Court Montgomery County, Texas
More informationRecording of Officers Increases Has Your Agency Set The Standards for Liability Protection? Let s face it; police officers do not like to be recorded, especially when performing their official duties in
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 20, 2001
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 20, 2001 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JASHUA SHANNON SIDES Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County Nos. 225250
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO. : O P I N I O N - vs - 11/9/2009 :
[Cite as State v. Moore, 2009-Ohio-5927.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO PREBLE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2009-02-005 : O P I N I O N - vs - 11/9/2009
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed March 14, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D10-2415 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationSubmitted January 31, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Fasciale and Gilson.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationCourse Security Services. Unit IV U.S. Constitution and Constitutional Issues
Course Security Services Unit IV U.S. Constitution and Constitutional Issues Essential Questions What is one of the jurisdictional differences between private security and police and how do the 4 th, 5
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA Eric Sinns, CASE NO.: 2016-CA-977-O v. Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles,
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 13, 2009
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 13, 2009 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BRANDON D. THOMAS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Warren County No. M-9973 Larry B.
More informationMEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH
MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH July 3, 2014 14-15 No Charges Approved in IIO Investigations Involving Police Service Dogs Victoria The Criminal Justice Branch (CJB), Ministry of Justice, announced
More informationCASE NO. 1D The evidence at the suppression hearing showed that asset-protection
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D14-577
More informationA Publication of the Criminal Justice Institute University of Arkansas System. Edited by Don Kidd
CJI Legal Briefs Volume 18, Issue 2 Winter 2014 A Publication of the Criminal Justice Institute University of Arkansas System Edited by Don Kidd 1 CIVIL RIGHTS: Entry of Property Without a Search Warrant;
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 24, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D10-3264 Lower Tribunal No. 06-1071 K Omar Ricardo
More informationDISSENTING OPINION BY NAKAMURA, C.J.
DISSENTING OPINION BY NAKAMURA, C.J. I respectfully dissent. Although the standard of review for whether police conduct constitutes interrogation is not entirely clear, it appears that Hawai i applies
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO.: SC TH DCA CASE NO.: 5D STATE OF FLORIDA,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SERGIO CORONA, Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: SC06-1054 5TH DCA CASE NO.: 5D02-2850 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
More informationAmerican Criminal Law and Procedure Vocabulary
American Criminal Law and Procedure Vocabulary acquit: affidavit: alibi: amendment: appeal: arrest: arraignment: bail: To set free or discharge from accusation; to declare that the defendant is innocent
More informationHOW TO WRITE ESSAYS FOR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW SCHOOL AND BAR EXAMS. WHAT to Say and HOW to Say It! Tim Tyler Ph.D.
NAILING THE BAR TM HOW TO WRITE ESSAYS FOR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW SCHOOL AND BAR EXAMS WHAT to Say and HOW to Say It! Tim Tyler Ph.D. Attorney at Law NAILING THE BAR How to Write Essays for Criminal Procedure
More information160 Cal. App. 4th 1615, *; 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 575, **; 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 381, ***
160 Cal. App. 4th 1615, *; 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 575, **; 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 381, *** In re R.K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.K., Defendant and
More informationCriminal Law: Constitutional Search
Tulsa Law Review Volume 7 Issue 2 Article 8 1971 Criminal Law: Constitutional Search Katherine A. Gallagher Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 24, 2012 v No. 301049 Emmet Circuit Court MICHAEL JAMES KRUSELL, LC No. 10-003236-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Hamilton, 2011-Ohio-3835.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95720 STATE OF OHIO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT vs. CHRISTOPHER
More information