AELE Seminars
Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations
Oct. 2-5, 2017– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues
SAVE THE DATE:
Jan. 22-25, 2018 - Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Click here for more information about all AELE Seminars
A civil liability law publication for Law Enforcement
ISSN 0271-5481 Cite this issue as: 2017 LR May
Click here to view information on
the editor of this publication.
Access the multi-year Civil Liability Case Digest
Return
to the monthly publications menu
Report non-working links here
Some links are to PDF files - Adobe Reader™
must be used to view content
CONTENTS
|
Assault and Battery: Physical (2 cases) |
False Arrest/Imprisonment: No Warrant
False Arrest/Imprisonment: Unlawful Detention
Firearms Related: Second Amendment Issues
First Amendment
Interrogation
Immigration Detainees
Malicious Prosecution
Search and Seizure: Home/Business
AELE Seminars
Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations
Oct. 2-5, 2017– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues
SAVE THE DATE:
Jan. 22-25, 2018 - Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Click here for more information about all AELE Seminars
- Some of the case digests do not have a link to the full opinion.
- Most Federal District Court opinions can be accessed via PACER. Registration required. Opinions are usually free; other documents are 10¢ per page.
- Access to cases linked to www.findlaw.com may require registration, which is free.
|
Assault and Battery: Physical FBI agents and Bureau of Land Management agents searched 12 properties and arrested 22 people in a number of Utah locations, targeting persons trafficking illegally obtained Native American artifacts. One day after the search of a doctor’s home as part of these raids, and his subsequent arrest and release on bond, he killed himself. His estate sued, claiming that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the use of excessive force during the incident. A federal appeals court upheld a grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The agent who directed the raid did not use excessive force in violation of the doctor's rights under the Fourth Amendment because he directed other agents to detain the doctor, his wife, and his daughter while as many as 22 agents, who were wearing soft body armor and carrying guns, searched the house. Estate of James Redd v. Love , #16-4010, 848 F.3d 899 (10th Cir. 2017).
A motorist stopped for a traffic offense met his burden of rebutting the defendant officer’s qualified immunity defense. The court concluded that the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the incident, and that the officer’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of then-existing clearly established law. In this case, he stopped the plaintiff for a minor traffic offense and abruptly escalated to a takedown, The motorist had presented no immediate threat or risk of flight. He allegedly offered, at most, passive resistance, including asking whether he was under arrest, which if true would not justify the level of force utilized. The officer also had his Taser aimed at the motorist’s back while he stood against his vehicle, facing away from the officer, with his empty hands displayed behind his back, not presenting any threat. Hanks v. Rogers, #15-11295, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 5927 (5th Cir.). |
False Arrest/Imprisonment: No Warrant
A motorist claimed that a state trooper unconstitutionally initiated a traffic stop and questioning, detainment, and arrest of him without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The state trooper was entitled to qualified immunity from the claim that he lacked reasonable suspicion warranting a fifty-minute extension of a traffic stop while he summoned a drug dog that alerted to the plaintiff's pickup. The trooper did not violate clearly established Fourth Amendment law in concluding that he had reasonable suspicion to detain the plaintiff until the drug dog arrived based on objective, particular facts including a discrepancy between the motorist’s statements about his past record and what dispatch informed the officer about the motorist’s past. De La Rosa v. White, #15-3399, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 5273 (8th Cir.).
False Arrest/Imprisonment: Unlawful Detention
****Editor's Case Alert****
A man was searched during a traffic stop and a vitamin bottle containing pills was found. Officers conducted a field test which proved negative for controlled substances. They arrested him and an evidence technician at the police station also got a negative result for controlled substances when he tested the pills but reported that one of the pills tested “positive for the probable presence of ecstasy.” He was charged with unlawful possession and a judge, relying solely on an officer’s complaint, ruled that there was probable cause to hold the detainee pending trial. A state police lab then again tested the pills and found no controlled substance, but not before the detainee had been in custody for 48 days.
The detainee sued the city and its officers more than two years after he was arrested but less than two years since the criminal case was dismissed. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected lower court rulings that a two year statute of limitations barred an unlawful arrest claim and that the pretrial detention after legal process was initiated barred a Fourth Amendment claim. The Fourth Amendment prohibits detention without probable cause. When the legal process has begun, but probable cause was not satisfied, as here where the judge’s probable cause determination was allegedly based on fabricated evidence, it does not cut off a Fourth Amendment claim. The unlawful detention claim was properly brought under the Fourth Amendment, rather than the due process clause. On remand, the appeals court was ordered to hold further proceedings on when the claim accrued, unless it found that the city waived its timeliness argument. Manuel v. Joliet, #14-9496, 197 L. Ed. 2d 312, 2017 U.S. Lexis 2021, 85 U.S.L.W. 4130.
Firearms Related: Second Amendment Issues
A man claimed that law enforcement officials violated his Second Amendment rights by seizing ammunition and firearms from his home and then prosecuting him for their possession. The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of California’s ten-year ban on such possession following a conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence. A federal appeals court, noting that it had already, during a previous case, United States v. Chovan, #11-50107, 735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013), upheld a more restrictive federal lifetime ban on possession of firearms and ammunition for those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes, saw no reason not to also uphold the California ten-year ban. His arrest was also based on probable cause, defeating a false arrest claim. Fortson v. L.A. City Attorney's Office, #15-55497, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 6029 (9th Cir.).
First Amendment
A tattoo artist sued a California city, arguing that its zoning ordinances violated his First Amendment rights by unreasonably restricting his plan to open and operate a tattoo shop there. A federal appeals court held that the plaintiff raised a viable claim that the city's zoning ordinances constituted an unlawful prior restraint on speech, and constituted unlawful time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The plaintiff challenged the location restrictions on tattoo shops, and the requirement of a conditional use permit which he vested unbridled discretion in the city. It was not necessary for the ordinances to prohibit tattooing entirely in order to be a prior restraint; Real v. City of Long Beach, #15-56158, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 5446 (9th Cir.).
A man was in a crowd outside a nightclub when shots were fired killing another person. Investigators gathered security videos and interviewed witnesses. They spoke to the man’s mother, who informed them that he had cognitive impairments. When he went voluntarily to be interviewed, he made statements about whom he had been with and where he was standing that were contradicted by the videos, and he was arrested for obstruction of justice. During further interrogation, he denied involvement in the shooting over 140 times, but eventually confessed, following a polygraph. After the polygraph, he stated that he wanted a lawyer, but detectives convinced him to waive his rights and employed various interrogation techniques, falsely stating that he had been identified as the shooter and had failed his polygraph test.
The court in the criminal case suppressed the confession, stating that the man was “functionally illiterate” and had previously been found incompetent to stand trial for a different crime. A federal appeals court rejected claims of unlawful interrogation. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his right to be free from the interrogation tactics was clearly established. The officers had probable cause for his arrest for obstruction, defeating his false arrest claim. Brady claims relating to the officers’ failure to disclose certain statements known to them during the interrogation were rejected, as Brady does not require the disclosure of favorable evidence before trial. Gill v. City of Milwaukee, #16-2846, 850 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2017).
Immigration Detainees
A naturalized U.S. citizen sued an ICE agent for allegedly issuing an improper immigration detainer against him, and sued the county sheriff and the county for their alleged roles in his detention. The detainer was withdrawn when it was determined that he was not the felon actually sought, as well as being a U.S. citizen, but merely had a similar name to the person sought.
The ICE agent had arguable probable cause to issue the immigration detainer, based on the facts known to him at the time, and thus was entitled to qualified immunity. The sheriff was also entitled to qualified immunity, as he did not directly participate in the complained of actions. There was also no basis for municipal or supervisory liability where employees received instructive memorandum and on-the-job training, and the actions in this case could not reasonably be attributed to a defective governmental policy or custom.Mendoza v. Davis, #16-1807, 849 F.3d 408 (8th Cir. 2017).
Malicious Prosecution
A woman acquitted of murder charges claimed that a detective violated her constitutional rights to a fair trial and compulsory process by intimidating and attempting to dissuade a key witness from testifying on behalf of the defense, and that the detective and other unknown (“John Doe”) detectives conspired to violate her civil rights by orchestrating criminal charges against the key witness. Overturning the trial court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, a federal appeals court ruled that the plaintiff adequately alleged misconduct by the detective that rose to the level of substantial interference with a defense witness in contravention of the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. She also alleged a sufficient causal connection between the detective’s misconduct and the witness's unavailability. The fact that she was eventually acquitted did not render the witness's testimony immaterial, nor bar a section 1983 action stemming from violations of her rights during the underlying criminal investigation and prosecution. A plausible claim for civil conspiracy was also alleged. Park v. Thompson, #14-56655, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 4426 (9th Cir.).
Search and Seizure: Home/Business
A man incarcerated for robbery, unlawful use of a weapon, mob action, and firing a firearm at an occupied vehicle was released, then returned to prison for domestic battery. Discharged on supervised release, officers and a parole agent carried out a compliance check at 6:30 a.m. because they had received a tip about guns at the residence. When the officers arrived, the man took several minutes to open the door, calling his brother at work to come there. The officers handcuffed the man, and also handcuffed the brother when he arrived.
The lawsuit claimed that neither of them was allowed to observe the search, and that the officers pulled out insulation, put holes in the walls, ripped the couch, and broke hinges. He also claimed that an officer wrestled him to the ground and took his keys, including the door to his locked bedroom. Both men were arrested after the search of their apartment revealed an unregistered firearm and ammunition. While one arrestee was acquitted of gun possession charges and the charges were dismissed as to the other arrestee, a grand jury indictment defeated one arrestee's state law malicious prosecution claim because the indictment broke the chain of causation. The claim that Fourth Amendment rights were violated due to property damage incurred during the search failed because four of ten officers involved in the search were sued, but no evidence of the identity of those actually responsible for the property damage was presented. Colbert v. City of Chicago, #16-1362, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 4486 (7th Cir.).
Report non-working links here
AELE Seminars
Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations
Oct. 2-5, 2017– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues
SAVE THE DATE:
Jan. 22-25, 2018 - Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Click here for more information about all AELE Seminars
Interrogation: Interrogation, Point of View, Alameda County District Attorney’s Office (Winter 2017).
Police-Public Contact: Police-Public Contact Survey: Assessment and Recommendations for Producing Trend Estimates after 2011 Questionnaire Redesign, by Marcus Berzofsky, Glynis Ewing, Matthew DeMichele, Lynn Langton, Shelley S. Hyland, and Elizabeth Davis, Bureau of Justice Statistics (April 6, 2017 NCJ 250485).
Reference:
- Abbreviations of Law Reports, laws and agencies used in our publications
- AELE's list of recently-noted civil liability law resources.
Cross References
|
Electronic Control Weapons: Pointing – See also, Assault and Battery: Physical (2nd case). |
Failure to Disclose Evidence – See also Interrogation
Search and Seizure: Vehicle – See also, False Arrest/Imprisonment: No Warrant
U.S. Supreme Court Cases – See also, False Arrest/Imprisonment: Unlawful Detention
Report non-working links here
Return to the Contents menu.
Return to the monthly publications menu
Access the multiyear Civil Liability Law Case Digest
List of links to court websites
Report non-working links here.
© Copyright 2017 by AELE, Inc.
Contents may be downloaded, stored, printed or copied,
but may not be republished for commercial purposes.