SUPREME COURT UPDATE 2013 2014 Term Dave Spotts

SUPREME COURT UPDATE 2013 -2014 Term Dave Spotts

IMPORTANT STUFF This presentation will be online and downloadable free at: www. aele. org Materials should be online in about a week Look for los (Legal Officers Section) & 2014 Any Case mentioned can be downloaded free in its entirety at: www. supremecourt. gov Look for Opinions

WHY REVIEW CASES?

WHY REVIEW CASES? Understand the actions a reasonable officer may take or not take based upon the totality of the circumstances at the time the decision is made

WHY REVIEW CASES? Understand the actions a reasonable officer may take or not take based upon the totality of the circumstances at the time the decision is made Understand our tradecraft better than our criminal adversaries and their supporters

WHY REVIEW CASES? Understand the actions a reasonable officer may take or not take based upon the totality of the circumstances at the time the decision is made Understand our tradecraft better than our criminal adversaries and their supporters If we want people to think of us as the good guys, then we need to act like the good guys

Review 5 cases in detail: Stanton v. Sims Fernandez v. California Navarette v. California Plumoff v. Rickard Riley v. California Review another 9 cases in summary fashion

Search – Exigent Circumstances – Fresh Pursuit (Foot) 9 TH Circuit – Decided November 4, 2013

Search – Exigent Circumstances – Fresh Pursuit (Foot) 9 TH Circuit – Decided November 4, 2013 FACTS: 27 May 2008 at 0100 La Mesa, CA PO Stanton & partner receive “unknown disturbance” call involving a person with a baseball bat

Search – Exigent Circumstances – Fresh Pursuit (Foot) 9 TH Circuit – Decided November 4, 2013 FACTS: 27 May 2008 at 0100 La Mesa, CA PO Stanton & partner receive “unknown disturbance” call involving a person with a baseball bat Stanton had prior knowledge of gang violence in the neighborhood of the call

Search – Exigent Circumstances – Fresh Pursuit Qualified Immunity Case 9 TH Circuit – Decided November 4, 2013 FACTS: 27 May 2008 at 0100 La Mesa, CA PO Stanton & partner receive “unknown disturbance” call involving a person with a baseball bat Stanton had prior knowledge of gang violence in the neighborhood of the call In area of call, Stanton sees 3 men walking in the street

Upon seeing the police, 2 men turn & walk into an apartment complex.

Upon seeing the police, 2 men turn & walk into an apartment complex. The third, Nicholas Patrick, crosses about 25 yards in from of the cruiser & walks quickly/ran towards a residence.

Upon seeing the police, 2 men turn & walk into an apartment complex. The third, Nicholas Patrick, crosses about 25 yards in from of the cruiser & walks quickly/ran towards a residence. Stanton did not see Patrick with a bat but orders him to stop.

Upon seeing the police, 2 men turn & walk into an apartment complex. The third, Nicholas Patrick, crosses about 25 yards in from of the cruiser & walks quickly/ran towards a residence. Stanton did not see Patrick with a bat but orders him to stop. Patrick did not stop, looked back at Stanton, ignored his order & quickly entered a fenced yard

The fence was 6 feet high and solid wood.

The fence was 6 feet high and solid wood. Stanton did not know if it was Patrick’s yard/house.

The fence was 6 feet high and solid wood. Stanton did not know if it was Patrick’s yard/house. Property belongs to Drendolyn Sims, who was standing behind the gate, unknown to Stanton.

The fence was 6 feet high and solid wood. Stanton did not know if it was Patrick’s yard/house. Property belongs to Drendolyn Sims, who was standing behind the gate, unknown to Stanton. Ca Penal Code has Misdemeanor Offense if disobey a police order to stop.

The fence was 6 feet high and solid wood. Stanton did not know if it was Patrick’s yard/house. Property belongs to Drendolyn Sims, who was standing behind the gate, unknown to Stanton. Ca Penal Code has Misdemeanor Offense if disobey a police order to stop. Stanton, in fresh pursuit, kicks open the gate, hitting Sims causing facial and shoulder injuries.

Sims sued claiming an unreasonable warrantless search in violation of the 4 th Amendment Stanton filed for Summary Judgment claiming no constitutional violation occurred and in the alternative, that he was entitled to qualified immunity

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY (in legalese) 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 (in cop speak) gives officers breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments and protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.

There is sharp division in courts regarding whether or not fresh pursuit of a misdemeanor suspect is an exigent circumstance for a warrantless search Because the law was not clearly established, Stanton is entitled to Qualified Immunity Court did not rule on constitutionality

Law regarding warrantless entry in fresh pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanant is not clearly established. Check with your Legal Advisor or Prosecuting Attorney’s Office for guidance

Fernandez v. California Search – Consent – Joint Occupants Decided February 25, 2014

Fernandez v. California Search – Consent – Joint Occupants Decided February 25, 2014 FACTS: Police were investigating an active robbery with possible gang implications in a neighborhood. An anonymous male told the police that “the guy is in the apartment” and pointed to an apartment building.

Fernandez v. California Search – Consent – Joint Occupants Decided February 25, 2014 FACTS: Police were investigating an active robbery with possible gang implications in a neighborhood. An anonymous male told the police that “the guy is in the apartment” and pointed to an apartment building. Police then observed a suspect run into that apartment building, but did not see the specific apartment he entered.

Fernandez v. California A minute or two later, the Police heard screams coming from one of the apartments.

Fernandez v. California A minute or two later, the Police heard screams coming from one of the apartments. They knocked on the door of that apartment, which was answered by a female name Rojas. She appeared to be recently assaulted, including facial injuries and blood on her shirt and hand.

Fernandez v. California A minute or two later, the Police heard screams coming from one of the apartments. They knocked on the door of that apartment, which was answered by a female name Rojas. She appeared to be recently assaulted, including facial injuries and blood on her shirt and hand. Rojas stated she had been in a fight. She was asked if anyone else was in the apartment and she stated only her 4 -year old son.

Fernandez v. California Believing a domestic assault had occurred, Police asked Rojas to step out of the apartment so they could do a protective sweep of the home.

Fernandez v. California Believing a domestic assault had occurred, Police asked Rojas to step out of the apartment so they could do a protective sweep of the home. At that time, Fernandez appeared at the door wearing only boxer shorts and stated “You don’t have any right to come in here. I know my rights. ”

Fernandez v. California Believing a domestic assault had occurred, Police asked Rojas to step out of the apartment so they could do a protective sweep of the home. At that time, Fernandez appeared at the door wearing only boxer shorts and stated “You don’t have any right to come in here. I know my rights. ” Suspecting Fernandez had assaulted Rojas; Fernandez was removed from the apartment and placed under arrest for that assault.

Fernandez v. California Rojas then identified Fernandez as her attacker. Fernandez was taken to booking and the Police departed the scene.

Fernandez v. California Rojas then identified Fernandez as her attacker. Fernandez was taken to booking and the Police departed the scene. Approximately an hour later and while Fernandez was still in custody, Police returned to the apartment and asked Rojas for consent to search. She gave both verbal and written consent.

Fernandez v. California Rojas then identified Fernandez as her attacker. Fernandez was taken to booking and the Police departed the scene. Approximately an hour later and while Fernandez was still in custody, Police returned to the apartment and asked Rojas for consent to search. She gave both verbal and written consent. The search yielded the knife used in the robbery, the clothing worn during the robbery, evidence of affiliation with the “Drifters” gang and ammunition.

Fernandez v. California Additionally, the 4 -year old son of Rojas showed police where Fernandez had hidden a sawed-off shotgun.

Fernandez v. California Additionally, the 4 -year old son of Rojas showed police where Fernandez had hidden a sawed-off shotgun. Fernandez was convicted of multiple charges and sentenced to 14 years in prison.

Fernandez v. California Clarified objection of a co-tenant that prohibits a consent search under Randolph

Fernandez v. California Clarified objection of a co-tenant that prohibits a consent search under Randolph If an objection to a consent search is made by a co-tenant, under what conditions is the objection valid?

Fernandez v. California A co-tenant can give valid consent to search a home in the absence of another co-tenant who objected to the search, but is no longer present at the time of consent.

Fernandez v. California If there are multiple occupants and you are seeking a consent search – plan your request to target an occupant likely to agree when less cooperative occupants are not present.

Fernandez v. California If there are multiple occupants and you are seeking a consent search – plan your request to target an occupant likely to agree when less cooperative occupants are not present. Do not “manufacture” circumstances to have less cooperative occupants absent from the scene.

Fernandez v. California If there are multiple occupants and you are seeking a consent search – plan your request to target an occupant likely to agree when less cooperative occupants are not present. Do not “manufacture” circumstances to have less cooperative occupants absent from the scene. Whenever possible, get the consent in writing or otherwise recorded.

Navarette v. California Seizure – Vehicle Stop – Grounds for Reasonable Suspicion to Make the Stop Decided April 22, 2014

Navarette v. California Seizure – Vehicle Stop – Grounds for Reasonable Suspicion to Make the Stop Decided April 22, 2014 FACTS: CHP Humbolt County Dispatch take a call of a reckless driver

Navarette v. California Seizure – Vehicle Stop – Grounds for Reasonable Suspicion to Make the Stop Decided April 22, 2014 FACTS: CHP Humbolt County Dispatch take a call of a reckless driver. Call transferred to Mendocino County, who dispatch call to CHP units 5 minutes later.

Navarette v. California Seizure – Vehicle Stop – Grounds for Reasonable Suspicion to Make the Stop Decided April 22, 2014 FACTS: CHP Humbolt County Dispatch take a call of a reckless driver. Call transferred to Mendocino County, who dispatch call to CHP units 5 minutes later. Mendocino does not have caller’s ID.

Navarette v. California Call gives Vehicle Make, Model, Color, Registration Plate Number, Last Known Location and Direction of Travel.

Navarette v. California Call gives Vehicle Make, Model, Color, Registration Plate Number, Last Known Location and Direction of Travel. Dispatch also advises the caller was run off the road by the suspect vehicle.

Navarette v. California Call gives Vehicle Make, Model, Color, Registration Plate Number, Last Known Location and Direction of Travel. Dispatch also advises the caller was run off the road by the suspect vehicle. 13 minutes later, CHP Officer passes suspect vehicle approximately 19 miles past the last know location.

Navarette v. California Call gives Vehicle Make, Model, Color, Registration Plate Number, Last Known Location and Direction of Travel. Dispatch also advises the caller was run off the road by the suspect vehicle. 13 minutes later, CHP Officer passes suspect vehicle approximately 19 miles past the last know location. Officer does a U-turn and stops suspect vehicle without observing any violations.

Navarette v. California Second Officer arrives on scene.

Navarette v. California Second Officer arrives on scene. Driver was Lorenzo Prado Navarette and passenger was Jose Prado Navarette.

Navarette v. California Second Officer arrives on scene. Driver was Lorenzo Prado Navarette and passenger was Jose Prado Navarette. Officers smelled marijuana on approach to vehicle.

Navarette v. California Second Officer arrives on scene. Driver was Lorenzo Prado Navarette and passenger was Jose Prado Navarette. Officers smelled marijuana on approach to vehicle. 30 pounds of marijuana were found in the bed of the truck during a search.

Navarette v. California Was the “anonymous” report sufficient to justify the stop when the police saw no reckless or careless driving independent of the call?

Navarette v. California Was the “anonymous” report sufficient to justify the stop when the police saw no reckless or careless driving independent of the call? Court looked at 2 cases: Alabama v. White (1990) – Drug transport – Prediction of future behavior

Navarette v. California Was the “anonymous” report sufficient to justify the stop when the police saw no reckless or careless driving independent of the call? Court looked at 2 cases: Alabama v. White (1990) – Drug transport – Prediction of future behavior Florida v. J. L. (2000) – Man with a Gun – No basis for believing tipster had special familiarity with JL’s affairs.

Navarette v. California Court also dug very deep looking at the Advisory Committee’s Notes on the Federal Rules of Evidence for Hearsay Exceptions for “Present Sense Impressions” and “Excited Utterances. ”

Navarette v. California Court also dug very deep looking at the Advisory Committee’s Notes on the Federal Rules of Evidence for Hearsay Exceptions for “Present Sense Impressions” and “Excited Utterances. ” Also looked at 911 Technology.

Navarette v. California Court also dug very deep looking at the Advisory Committee’s Notes on the Federal Rules of Evidence for Hearsay Exceptions for “Present Sense Impressions” and “Excited Utterances. ” Also looked at 911 Technology. Finally looked at NHTSA publications on DWI.

Navarette v. California Court ruled 5 -4 that stop was valid. The traffic stop complied with the Fourth Amendment because, under the totality of the circumstances, the Officer had reasonable suspicion that the truck’s driver was intoxicated.

Navarette v. California The more detailed a tip, especially if correctly predicting future behavior or alleging an eyewitness to a serious crime, the less corroboration police need to act. The less detailed the tip, the more corroboration needed. Regardless, always corroborate if time and circumstances permit.

Plumhoff v. Rickard Seizure – Vehicle Pursuit – Use of Deadly Force – Excessive Force – Qualified Immunity Decided May 27, 2014

Plumhoff v. Rickard Seizure – Vehicle Pursuit – Use of Deadly Force – Excessive Force – Qualified Immunity Decided May 27, 2014 FACTS: Near midnight on July 18, 2004, West Memphis, AR Police stop a car for a headlight out.

Plumhoff v. Rickard Seizure – Vehicle Pursuit – Use of Deadly Force – Excessive Force – Qualified Immunity Decided May 27, 2014 FACTS: Near midnight on July 18, 2004, West Memphis, AR Police stop a car for a headlight out. Rickard is the driver and has a passenger.

Plumhoff v. Rickard Seizure – Vehicle Pursuit – Use of Deadly Force – Excessive Force – Qualified Immunity Decided May 27, 2014 FACTS: Near midnight on July 18, 2004, West Memphis, AR Police stop a car for a headlight out. Rickard is the driver and has a passenger. Officer noticed an indentation in the windshield – “ head or basketball” sized

Plumhoff v. Rickard does not produce his license and appears nervous.

Plumhoff v. Rickard does not produce his license and appears nervous. Police ask Rickard to step out of the car and he flees, speeding away.

Plumhoff v. Rickard does not produce his license and appears nervous. Police ask Rickard to step out of the car and he flees, speeding away. A pursuit, eventually involving 5 additional units ensues.

Plumhoff v. Rickard does not produce his license and appears nervous. Police ask Rickard to step out of the car and he flees, speeding away. A pursuit, eventually involving 5 additional units ensues. A “rolling roadblock” to end the pursuit fails.

Plumhoff v. Rickard Rickard does not produce his license and appears nervous. Police ask Rickard to step out of the car and he flees, speeding away. A pursuit, eventually involving 5 additional units ensues. A “rolling roadblock” to end the pursuit fails. Rickard is “swerving through traffic at high speeds. ”

Plumhoff v. Rickard Speeds exceed 100 MPH.

Plumhoff v. Rickard Speeds exceed 100 MPH. Rickard and the police units passed more than two dozen vehicles.

Plumhoff v. Rickard Speeds exceed 100 MPH. Rickard and the police units passed more than two dozen vehicles. The pursuit continues off I-40 and shortly thereafter, Rickard makes “a quick right turn” and hits a cruiser.

Plumhoff v. Rickard Speeds exceed 100 MPH. Rickard and the police units passed more than two dozen vehicles. The pursuit continues off I-40 and shortly thereafter, Rickard makes “a quick right turn” and hits a cruiser. That crash causes Rickard to spin out in a parking lot and strike a second cruiser.

Plumhoff v. Rickard Speeds exceed 100 MPH. Rickard and the police units passed more than two dozen vehicles. The pursuit continues off I-40 and shortly thereafter, Rickard makes “a quick right turn” and hits a cruiser. That crash causes Rickard to spin out in a parking lot and strike a second cruiser. The second impact causes Rickard to be unable to move forward so goes into reverse “to escape. ”

Plumhoff v. Rickard is rocking his car and spinning his tires in an effort to back out and continue to flee.

Plumhoff v. Rickard is rocking his car and spinning his tires in an effort to back out and continue to flee. Officers Plumhoff and Evans got out of their cruisers, guns drawn and approached Rickard’s car.

Plumhoff v. Rickard is rocking his car and spinning his tires in an effort to back out and continue to flee. Officers Plumhoff and Evans got out of their cruisers, guns drawn and approached Rickard’s car. Rickard continues to try and back-up/rock back and forth to escape and “makes contact” with a third cruiser.

Plumhoff v. Rickard is rocking his car and spinning his tires in an effort to back out and continue to flee. Officers Plumhoff and Evans got out of their cruisers, guns drawn and approached Rickard’s car. Rickard continues to try and back-up/rock back and forth to escape and “makes contact” with a third cruiser. Plumhoff fires 3 shots into Rickard’s car as the attempt to escape continues.

Plumhoff v. Rickard then “reversed in a 180 degree arc” and “maneuvered onto” another street, forcing another Officer to “step to his right to avoid” being struck.

Plumhoff v. Rickard then “reversed in a 180 degree arc” and “maneuvered onto” another street, forcing another Officer to “step to his right to avoid” being struck. As Rickard broke containment and fled down this street, multiple Officers fired 12 more shots at the fleeing vehicle.

Plumhoff v. Rickard then “reversed in a 180 degree arc” and “maneuvered onto” another street, forcing another Officer to “step to his right to avoid” being struck. As Rickard broke containment and fled down this street, multiple Officers fired 12 more shots at the fleeing vehicle. Rickard crashes shortly thereafter and the pursuit ends.

Plumhoff v. Rickard then “reversed in a 180 degree arc” and “maneuvered onto” another street, forcing another Officer to “step to his right to avoid” being struck. As Rickard broke containment and fled down this street, multiple Officers fired 12 more shots at the fleeing vehicle. Rickard crashes shortly thereafter and the pursuit ends. Rickard and his passenger both die from a combination of the crash and shooting.

Plumhoff v. Rickard’s daughter sued alleging that the Officers were not allowed to use deadly force to terminate the pursuit and that even if they were permitted to fire their weapons, they went too far when they fired as many rounds as they did.

Plumhoff v. Rickard’s daughter sued alleging that the Officers were not allowed to use deadly force to terminate the pursuit and that even if they were permitted to fire their weapons, they went too far when they fired as many rounds as they did. Was the initial use of deadly force (first 3 shots) justified?

Plumhoff v. Rickard Rickard’s daughter sued alleging that the Officers were not allowed to use deadly force to terminate the pursuit and that even if they were permitted to fire their weapons, they went too far when they fired as many rounds as they did. Was the initial use of deadly force (first 3 shots) justified? Was the second use of deadly force (last 12 shots) justified?

Plumhoff v. Rickard The Officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Plumhoff v. Rickard The Officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In the alternative, the Officers were entitled to Qualified Immunity because they violated no clearly established law or right.

Plumhoff v. Rickard The Officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In the alternative, the Officers were entitled to Qualified Immunity because they violated no clearly established law or right. Rickard’s “outrageously reckless driving – posed a grave public safety risk” to the Officers and other people.

Plumhoff v. Rickard The Officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In the alternative, the Officers were entitled to Qualified Immunity because they violated no clearly established law or right. Rickard’s “outrageously reckless driving – posed a grave public safety risk” to the Officers and other people. It was reasonable to believe that if not stopped, Rickard would continue to pose that risk.

Plumhoff v. Rickard “It makes sense that, if Officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, they need not stop shooting until the threat has ended. ”

Plumhoff v. Rickard Under very specific and narrow circumstances, the use of deadly force may be justified to terminate a vehicle pursuit.

Plumhoff v. Rickard Under very specific and narrow circumstances, the use of deadly force may be justified to terminate a vehicle pursuit. Documenting details is crucial.

Plumhoff v. Rickard Under very specific and narrow circumstances, the use of deadly force may be justified to terminate a vehicle pursuit. Documenting details is crucial. There is a duty of continuing analysis during any use of force situation, especially when deadly force is involved.

Plumhoff v. Rickard Under very specific and narrow circumstances, the use of deadly force may be justified to terminate a vehicle pursuit. Documenting details is crucial. There is a duty of continuing analysis during any use of force situation, especially when deadly force is involved. Consideration must be given for tactics utilized and scope of deployment.

Riley v. California Search – Scope of Search Incident to Arrest – Search of Cell Phones Actually combined two cases; Riley v. California and Wurie v. California as legal issues were identical. Decided June 25, 2014

Riley v. California Search – Scope of Search Incident to Arrest – Search of Cell Phones Actually combined two cases; Riley v. California and Wurie v. California as legal issues were identical. Decided June 25, 2014 RILEY FACTS: Riley was stopped for driving with expired registration.

Riley v. California Riley’s drivers license was suspended.

Riley v. California Riley’s drivers license was suspended. Pursuant to department policy, Riley’s car was impounded. The inventory search yielded 2 loaded handguns under the hood of the car.

Riley v. California Riley’s drivers license was suspended. Pursuant to department policy, Riley’s car was impounded. The inventory search yielded 2 loaded handguns under the hood of the car. Riley was arrested. The search incident to the arrest revealed items associated with the “Bloods” street gang.

Riley v. California Riley’s drivers license was suspended. Pursuant to department policy, Riley’s car was impounded. The inventory search yielded 2 loaded handguns under the hood of the car. Riley was arrested. The search incident to the arrest revealed items associated with the “Bloods” street gang. A “smart” cell phone was also found in Riley’s pants pocket.

Riley v. California The arresting officer accessed information on the phone and found multiple references to “CK” which the officer knew stand for Crip Killers, an identifier for a Bloods member.

Riley v. California The arresting officer accessed information on the phone and found multiple references to “CK” which the officer knew stand for Crip Killers, an identifier for a Bloods member. About 2 hours later, a Gang Detective examined the contents of the phone in detail looking for evidence of crime and gang affiliation.

Riley v. California The arresting officer accessed information on the phone and found multiple references to “CK” which the officer knew stand for Crip Killers, an identifier for a Bloods member. About 2 hours later, a Gang Detective examined the contents of the phone in detail looking for evidence of crime and gang affiliation. Evidence was found, including photographs linking Riley to a shooting that occurred earlier.

Riley v. California Riley filed a motion to suppress the evidence and lost.

Riley v. California Riley filed a motion to suppress the evidence and lost. Officers testified at trial about what was found on the phone and some photos from the phone were admitted into evidence.

Riley v. California Riley filed a motion to suppress the evidence and lost. Officers testified at trial about what was found on the phone and some photos from the phone were admitted into evidence. Riley was convicted on all counts and sentenced to an enhanced penalty of 15 years to life.

Riley v. California WURIE FACTS: Wurie was observed making an apparent drug sale from a car and was arrested.

Riley v. California WURIE FACTS: Wurie was observed making an apparent drug sale from a car and was arrested. At the station during a search incident to the arrest, a cell phone was taken from Wurie.

Riley v. California WURIE FACTS: Wurie was observed making an apparent drug sale from a car and was arrested. At the station during a search incident to the arrest, a cell phone was taken from Wurie. It was not a “smart” phone, but a basic flip phone.

Riley v. California WURIE FACTS: Wurie was observed making an apparent drug sale from a car and was arrested. At the station during a search incident to the arrest, a cell phone was taken from Wurie. It was not a “smart” phone, but a basic flip phone. The phone rang repeatedly with calls from “my house” which could be seen on the external screen.

Riley v. California Officers opened the phone and saw a photograph of a woman and a baby set as the wallpaper on the phone.

Riley v. California Officers opened the phone and saw a photograph of a woman and a baby set as the wallpaper on the phone. Officers then accessed the call log to determine the telephone number associated with “my house. ”

Riley v. California Officers opened the phone and saw a photograph of a woman and a baby set as the wallpaper on the phone. Officers then accessed the call log to determine the telephone number associated with “my house. ” Tracing that number through independent means, they discovered an address of an apartment building associated with the number.

Riley v. California Officers went to the apartment building, saw Wurie’s name on a mailbox and saw a woman who resembled the woman on the phone’s wallpaper in a specific apartment.

Riley v. California Officers went to the apartment building, saw Wurie’s name on a mailbox and saw a woman who resembled the woman on the phone’s wallpaper in a specific apartment. They secured the apartment, obtained a Search Warrant based in part on information from the phone.

Riley v. California Officers went to the apartment building, saw Wurie’s name on a mailbox and saw a woman who resembled the woman on the phone’s wallpaper in a specific apartment. They secured the apartment, obtained a Search Warrant based in part on information from the phone. The search revealed 215 grams of crack, marijuana, a firearm and cash.

Riley v. California Wurie moved to suppress the evidence and lost.

Riley v. California Wurie moved to suppress the evidence and lost. He was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 262 months in jail.

Riley v. California Was the extensive search of Riley’s smart phone permissible under the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement?

Riley v. California Was the extensive search of Riley’s smart phone permissible under the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement? Was the minimally invasive cursory search of Wurie’s flip phone permissible under the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement?

Riley v. California Police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone from an individual who has been arrested.

Riley v. California Police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone from an individual who has been arrested. Danger posed to Officers by digital data stored in a phone is all but non-existent.

Riley v. California Police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone from an individual who has been arrested. Danger posed to Officers by digital data stored in a phone is all but non-existent. Danger posed to Police by remote encryption or data wiping is minimal and can be addressed by other means.

Riley v. California Police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone from an individual who has been arrested. Danger posed to Officers by digital data stored in a phone is all but non-existent. Danger posed to Police by remote encryption or data wiping is minimal and can be addressed by other means. Even though it will impact Police’s ability to fight crime, privacy interests of person generally prevails.

Riley v. California Cell phone can be seized incident to arrest and examined to determine if a weapon or contraband is hidden in or on the phone.

Riley v. California Cell phone can be seized incident to arrest and examined to determine if a weapon or contraband is hidden in or on the phone. In almost all cases, the digital data/files in a phone cannot be searched without a warrant.

Riley v. California Cell phone can be seized incident to arrest and examined to determine if a weapon or contraband is hidden in or on the phone. In almost all cases, the digital data/files in a phone cannot be searched without a warrant. Court did acknowledge that if “police are truly confronted with a ‘now or never’ situation, ” a search may be justified under exigent circumstances.

Riley v. California Cell phone can be seized incident to arrest and examined to determine if a weapon or contraband is hidden in or on the phone. In almost all cases, the digital data/files in a phone cannot be searched without a warrant. Court did acknowledge that if “police are truly confronted with a ‘now or never’ situation, ” a search may be justified under exigent circumstances. Can also search if obtain voluntary consent.

Best of the Rest The 9 remaining cases In a summary fashion In no particular order

Cotton v. Tolan Seizure – Deadly Force – Qualified Immunity – Summary Judgment Fifth Circuit, decided May 5, 2014

Cotton v. Tolan FACTS: Police saw a black Nissan SUV and ran the registration on MDC. Entered one wrong digit and got hit for a stolen vehicle of same make and color. Vehicle parked on street in front of a house. 2 occupants, Tolan & Cooper, ordered to the ground and told they were in a stolen vehicle. Tolan said that was not true and it was his car.

Cotton v. Tolan Tolan’s parents came out of house and also said car was not stolen and it was a mistake. Tolan’s mother became indignant and started arguing with the Police. Officer Cotton ordered/pushed (disputed) mother to/against the garage door. Tolan rose to his knees/feet (disputed). Fearing Tolan was about to attack, Cotton shot him 3 times causing serious and permanent injuries.

Cotton v. Tolan Cotton granted Summary Judgment at District Court and was affirmed by the 5 TH Circuit ruling that regardless of whether Cotton used excessive force, he was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established right.

Cotton v. Tolan HOLDING: Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On a motion for summary judgment, the evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. OPERATIONAL KEYS: Understand legal obligations Analyze potential threats objectively

Hall v. Florida Mental/Intellectual Disability/Impairment FACTS: Florida had statute requiring that an accused must show an IQ Score of 70 or below before being permitted to present additional intellectual disability evidence. Hall’s IQ Test score was 71 and was denied the opportunity to present additional evidence.

Hall v. Florida HOLDING: The threshold requirement of the Florida statute is unconstitutional. OPERATIONAL KEY: When you suspect mental or intellectual disability or impairment, document all details that show understanding of questions, comments or commands as well as orientation to time, place and circumstances.

Bond v. United States Use of Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998. 3 RD Circuit; Decided June 2, 2014

Bond v. United States Use of Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998. 3 RD Circuit; Decided June 2, 2014 FACTS: Bond sought revenge against Haynes who had an affair with Bond’s husband. Bond spread 2 toxic substances on Haynes’ car, mailbox & door knob.

Bond v. United States Haynes only injury was a minor chemical burn that was treated by rinsing with water at home. Federal prosecutors charged Bond with violating the 1998 Act. HOLDING: The act is intended for chemical warfare and terrorism, not local assaults. OPERATIONAL KEY: Use common sense when making charging decisions.

United States v. Clarke Use and Motives of IRS summonses 11 TH Circuit; Decided June 19, 2014

United States v. Clarke Use and Motives of IRS summonses 11 TH Circuit; Decided June 19, 2014 FACTS: Clarke and others received IRS summons for tax records which they ignored. IRS brought an enforcement action. Clarke challenged the motives of the IRS in issuing the summons and sought to question the IRS Agents responsible for the summonses.

United States v. Clarke offered no reasons why the IRS motives were improper. HOLDING: A taxpayer has a right to conduct an examination of IRS officials regarding their reasons for issuing a summons only when he points to specific facts or circumstances plausibly raising an inference of bad faith.

United States v. Clarke offered no reasons why the IRS motives were improper. HOLDING: A taxpayer has a right to conduct an examination of IRS officials regarding their reasons for issuing a summons only when he points to specific facts or circumstances plausibly raising an inference of bad faith. OPERATIONAL KEY: Don’t mess with the IRS.

Abramski v. United States FFL regulations for purchasing guns – straw purchasers 4 TH Circuit; Decided June 16, 2014

Abramski v. United States FFL regulations for purchasing guns – straw purchasers 4 TH Circuit; Decided June 16, 2014 FACTS: Abramski offered to purchase a handgun for his uncle, even though the uncle could have legally purchased the gun himself. On the purchase form, Abramski identified he was the actual transferee/buyer and acknowledged that he was not a straw purchaser.

Abramski v. United States Abramski argued his misrepresentations were not material as he could legally own a gun, as could his uncle. Hence, the sale of the gun was legal and that is all that the law should address.

Abramski v. United States Abramski argued his misrepresentations were not material as he could legally own a gun, as could his uncle. Hence, the sale of the gun was legal and that is all that the law should address. HOLDING: The misrepresentation is material under the law.

Abramski v. United States Abramski argued his misrepresentations were not material as he could legally own a gun, as could his uncle. Hence, the sale of the gun was legal and that is all that the law should address. HOLDING: The misrepresentation is material under the law. OPERATIONAL KEY: Straw purchasing is a violation even if both the buyer & ultimate recipient can own a gun.

Loughrin v. United States Forged Checks – Intent to Defraud Financial Institutions 10 TH Circuit; Decided June 23, 2014

Loughrin v. United States Forged Checks – Intent to Defraud Financial Institutions 10 TH Circuit; Decided June 23, 2014 FACTS: Loughrin, posing as a Mormon missionary, was stealing checks from various mailboxes. He would forge the checks, purchase goods with the forged checks at Target, then immediately return the goods to Target for cash.

Loughrin v. United States He was charged under the Federal Bank Fraud Statute for knowingly executing a scheme to obtain property owned by or under the custody of a bank by fraudulent pretenses. Loughrin argued that his scheme sought to defraud Target, not the bank. Since the crime was directed at a third-party and not the bank itself, he could not be guilty of bank fraud.

Loughrin v. United States HOLDING: The statute does not require the Government to prove that a defendant intended to defraud a financial institution.

Loughrin v. United States HOLDING: The statute does not require the Government to prove that a defendant intended to defraud a financial institution. OPERATIONAL KEY: Fraud can be proven where in the normal course of business, the merchant would forward to a financial institution what they thought was a valid payment request but was not.

Burrage v. United States Drug delivery resulting in death – “But For” Causation – Penalty Enhancement 8 TH Circuit; Decided January 27, 2014

Burrage v. United States FACTS: A long-time drug user died following an extended binge that included heroin purchased from Burrage. Medical experts testified that the user may have died even if he had not taken the heroin. Burrage moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that, under the statute, the user’s death could only result from the heroin use for him to be found guilty.

Burrage v. United States For that to occur, there must be evidence that heroin was a “but for” cause of death. There was no such evidence in his case.

Burrage v. United States For that to occur, there must be evidence that heroin was a “but for” cause of death. There was no such evidence in his case. HOLDING: Where use of the drug distributed by the defendant is not an independently sufficient cause of the victim’s death, the defendant cannot be liable, unless such use if the but-for cause of death.

Burrage v. United States OPERTIONAL KEY: In drug delivery resulting in death cases, you need evidence to determine if the drug delivered is only a contributing factor or the controlling (but for) factor in the death of the user.

Kaley v. United States Forfeiture – Pre-trial Seizure – Use of Seized Assets to Pay Legal Fees – Determination of Probable Cause 11 TH Circuit; Decided February 25, 2014

Kaley v. United States FACTS: Grand Jury indicted Kaley’s for reselling stolen medical devices and laundering the proceeds. US got a pre-trial order to seize their assets, including cash. Kaley moved to vacate the order intending to use the cash to pay for their defense. District Court allowed them to challenge the assets traceability to the crimes, but not the facts supporting the indictment. Kaley appealed.

Kaley v. United States HOLDING: When challenging pre-trial asset seizure, a defendant may challenge the assets traceability to the crimes, but cannot contest a grand jury’s determination of probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime charged.

Kaley v. United States HOLDING: When challenging pre-trial asset seizure, a defendant may challenge the assets traceability to the crimes, but cannot contest a grand jury’s determination of probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime charged. OPERATIONAL KEYS: When feasible, consider using Grand Jury proceedings to minimize defense pre-trial tactics. Also, always look to forfeit assets up front.

Rosemond v. United States Criminal Conspiracy – Aiding and Abetting – Level of Knowledge – Underlying Crime – Jury Instructions 10 TH Circuit; Decided March 5, 2014

Rosemond v. United States Criminal Conspiracy – Aiding and Abetting – Level of Knowledge – Underlying Crime – Jury Instruction 10 TH Circuit; Decided March 5, 2014 FACTS: Rosemond participated in a drug deal in which either he or one of his co-conspirators fired a gun. The shooter’s identity was disputed and US could not identify the actual shooter.

Rosemond v. United States Rosemond was charged with carrying a gun in connection with a drug trafficking crime as well as aiding and abetting that crime. Jury instruction on aiding and abetting included: “knew his cohort used a firearm in the drug trafficking crime” and “knowingly and actively participated in the drug trafficking crime. ”

Rosemond v. United States Rosemond’s proposed instruction that he had to act intentionally “to encourage of facilitate” the firearm’s use was rejected. He was convicted.

Rosemond v. United States HOLDING: Defendant can be guilty of aiding and abetting a gun crime by proving active participation in the underlying crime with advance knowledge that a co-conspirator would carry or use a gun during the crime’s commission.

Rosemond v. United States HOLDING: Defendant can be guilty of aiding and abetting a gun crime by proving active participation in the underlying crime with advance knowledge that a co-conspirator would carry or use a gun during the crime’s commission. OPERATIONAL KEY: In conspiracy cases, be able to show overt participation in the crime and prior knowledge of key aspects of the criminal acts.

United States v. Castleman Firearms possession – Conviction of Disqualifying Offense – Sufficiency of Prior Conviction – Statutory Interpretation 11 TH Circuit; Decided March 26, 2014

United States v. Castleman FACTS: Castleman moved to dismiss his indictment forbidding the possession of firearms by anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. ” Castleman argued that his Kentucky conviction for DV was not a disqualifying conviction because it did not involve the use of or attempted use of physical force.

United States v. Castleman HOLDING: The prior conviction qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as the “physical force” requirement is satisfied by the degree of force that supports a common-law battery conviction; namely offensive touching.

United States v. Castleman HOLDING: The prior conviction qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as the “physical force” requirement is satisfied by the degree of force that supports a common-law battery conviction; namely offensive touching. OPERATIONAL KEY: Prior domestic violence convictions will be construed broadly in statutes that prohibit gun ownership for conviction of such offenses.

REMEMBER Keep Smiling to show you still enjoy the job and are still good at it.

Preview of Coming Cases Carroll v. Carman: Whether a “Knock and Talk” requires going to the front door. Illinois v. Cummings: After making a valid traffic stop and once the PC or RS has dissipated, is the stop unreasonably prolonged by a request to show drivers license. Los Angeles v. Patel: Does inspection of hotel records by police require a Warrant and can hotel operators refuse if there is no Warrant?

If not, use my proven Coping Technique

Questions? ? PRESENTED BY: Chief David J. Spotts, Esq. Mechanicsburg Police Department 36 West Allen St. Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Phone: (717) 691 -3300 dspotts@mechanicsburgpolice. org