---

 Search the Case Law Digest

CONTENTS

     Some of the case digests do not have a link to the full opinion.

• Cases that have a Lexis citation can be retrieved, for a fee, at: http://web.lexis.com/xchange/forms/uas/catalog.asp
• Most Federal District Court opinions can be accessed via PACER. Registration required. Opinions are usually free; other documents are 8¢ per page.
• Access to cases linked to www.findlaw.com may require registration, which is free.  

Assault and Battery: Chemical

     Police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for allegedly spraying pepper spray inside a house filled with 34 people after telling several of them to "get inside" the house when they arrived. If, as the plaintiffs claimed, they were subjected to pepper spray after they were detained, without any provocation, that would violate their clearly established constitutional rights. Duran v. Sirgedas, No. 05-4278, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 10338 (7th Cir.).

Assault and Battery: Physical

    While the officers had probable cause to believe a man they arrested at a mall was trespassing because he had previously been evicted from it and permanently banned from entering again, there were material issues of fact as to whether the officers' "gang tackle" of the arrestee, punches made while making his arrest, and the use of hobble restraints constituted excessive use of force, precluding summary judgment.  Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, No. 04-55938, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 10856 (9th Cir.).

     Officers who allegedly forced a man to the floor and handcuffed him, even if they caused his injuries from a hit to the head, did not act unreasonably when he refused to comply with an officer's order to get on the floor when he was encountered holding down a crying and screaming female. Evidence subsequently showed that he had sexually and physically abused he woman. The officers could reasonably believe, under the circumstances, that they needed to act swiftly to subdue the suspect. Molnar v. Doerfler, No. 3:03CV00813, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 35199 (D. Conn.).

Defenses: Statute of Limitations

     When an arrestee was arraigned on June 7, 2002, and his federal civil rights lawsuit for false imprisonment was filed in February of 2006, his claim was time-barred under an Ohio state two-year statute of limitations for personal injuries. The statute of limitations for a false imprisonment claim accrued when the false imprisonment ended, in other words, at the time that the plaintiff began to be held based on legal process, a judicial determination of probable cause, reached at the arraignment. Meadows v. Whetsel, No. 06-6211, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12153 (10th Cir.).

Dogs

     Man bitten by released police dog failed to show either that city's policies on use of dogs were unlawful (despite their license on when an officer should issue a warning before directing a dog to bite and hold and suspect) or that there was a history of the city's officers unreasonably using dogs to apprehend suspects. Officer acted with deliberate indifference in failing to provide such a warning. Stabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, No. 04-2538, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11602 (8th Cir.).

False Arrest/Imprisonment: No Warrant

     Business owner adequately alleged in his lawsuit that the mayor and city had knowingly authorized police officers to arrest him without probable cause on a charge of operating a business without a license. Lamon v. Sandidge, No. 06-4149, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11196 (7th Cir.).

     Officer had reasonable suspicion to stop van leaving closed construction company premises late at night when he knew it had previously been burglarized and had never seen a van leaving there so late at night when it was closed. Once stopped, the officer developed probable cause to arrest, detain, and prosecute the van occupants based on the evidence found. Murphy v. Bendig, No. 06-4307, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9920 (3rd Cir.).

     While a Washington state statute barred a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor offense unless an officer observed the crime being committed, the violation of that statute by arresting the plaintiff for second-degree trespass in being present on railroad tracks did not violate his constitutional rights. The officers acted upon reliable information concerning a man having been seen sitting or lying upon the tracks, and then found the plaintiff in the general area, where he appeared to be intoxicated. The officers were therefore entitled to summary judgment on a federal civil rights false arrest claim. Hall v. Hughes, No. 05-35658, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12052 (9th Cir.).

False Arrest/Imprisonment: Warrant

     Probable cause existed for the issuance of an arrest warrant for the plaintiff, based on physical descriptions given by robbery victims, the fact that he owned a car of the same make and color as that of the getaway vehicle, and that two or three witnesses to the robbery identified him from an initial photographic line-up. Additionally, a number of his own family members identified him as the person shown in a security camera photograph. Brock v. City of Zephyrhills, No. 06-16407, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11873 (11th Cir.).

Family Relationships

      Three surviving minor children of a man who died following a fight with police officers could not pursue claims for deprivation of their 14th Amendment right of familial association when they had not alleged or attempted to demonstrate that the officers directed their conduct at their familial association with their father or otherwise intended to interfere with it. The officers and city were therefore entitled to summary judgment. Estate of Herring v. City of Colorado Springs, No. 06-1166, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11775 (10th Cir.).

     Social workers were not entitled to summary judgment for removing minor children from their home without a warrant, based on a report that they were not toilet trained, were locked in their rooms at night, were not receiving medical and dental care, and were living in a house that was "dirty" and contained unsecured guns. The conditions in the home did not suffice to show that the children were in imminent risk of serious bodily harm, and the law requiring judicial authorization for the removal of children under such circumstances was clearly established, so that qualified immunity was inappropriate. The alleged conduct would have violated the clearly established Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the children and the parents. Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, No. 05-16071, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12359 (9th Cir.).

Firearms Related: Intentional Use

     Police officers acted reasonably in shooting and killing a man who approached them in a threatening manner while brandishing a machete and tire iron. He had been shot with a TASER® multiple times without effect.. The evidence also showed that other persons were in the area, and that the suspect had moved towards them more than once. Under the circumstances, a reasonable fact finder could not find that the officers acted in a willful or malicious manner. The officers were entitled to dismissal of both federal civil rights claims and a state law wrongful death claim arising from the incident. Hassan v. City of Minneapolis, No. 06-3504, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12506 (8th Cir.).

     In a case where the shooting police officer was the only surviving witness to the details of what happened when he shot and killed a man he initially stopped for riding a bicycle on the wrong side of the road and without lights, the court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the officer used excessive force. The decedent's estate argued that he did not, due to his physical limitations, pose a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer at the time of the shooting. The officer claimed that the suspect appeared to be drawing or pulling a weapon or object from his right rear pants pocket at the time of the shooting, and that he believed that to be a weapon, but subsequently turned out to be a pair of pliers. The Plaintiff, the decedent's mother, claimed that he had received a gun shot wound to his dominant right arm less than four months before, and therefore had almost no use of his right arm. Goodman v. Harris County, No. 05-20807, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11318 (5th Cir.).

First Amendment

     Federal appeals court rules that approximately 1,000 protestors had no First Amendment right to be admitted to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point for a political demonstration inside the gates of the facility during a graduation ceremony at which Vice President Cheney was delivering the commencement address. Legitimate security concerns justified the exclusion of the protestors, who had no constitutional right to demonstrate inside the gates of a military facility. Sussman v. Crawford, No. 07-2171, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12192 (2nd Cir.).

     Newspapers who obtained injunction against enforcement of ordinance regulating street vendors and door-to-door solicitors as applied to prohibit street and door to door sales of newspapers were prevailing parties entitled to an award of attorneys' fees even though the city argued that the case was moot and that the injunction should be vacated because the city voluntarily repealed portions of the law. Additionally, when the alleged mootness was based on the city's voluntary act, the injunction did not need to be vacated. A portion of the ordinance aimed at traffic safety, that only regulated the conduct of street vendors' at traffic-signal controlled intersections, however, was a constitutional restriction, and is non-discriminatory and content-neutral, so that it was improperly found unconstitutional by the trial court, and that portion of the decision was reversed. Houston Chronicle Pub. Co. v. City of League City, Texas, No. 05-41689, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12432 (5th Cir.).

     Barring members of a motorcycle club from attendance at a city and festival association sponsored garlic festival, based on a dress code barring the wearing of gang colors or other demonstrative insignia did not violate their First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs were asked to leave after entering the festival wearing vests with patches showing a skull with wings and a top hat, and the words "Top Hatters" and "Hollister." The court noted that the individual members of the club themselves had different interpretations of what the insignia meant, so that they did not amount to expressive content intended to convey any particular message which was worthy of protection under the First Amendment. There was no evidence that onlookers would understand any message conveyed, and barring the plaintiffs from the festival did not interfere with their First Amendment right of association, as they were still free to associate with each other. Villegas v. City of Gilroy, No. 05-15725, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9907 (9th Cir.).

Interrogation

     While the plaintiff alleged a valid cause of action for conducting an interrogation "shocking to the conscience" in violation of his 14th Amendment rights by claiming that he was threatened with physical harm if he refused to make a statement, he was not entitled to a ruling that the defendants were liable as a matter of law, and his claim ended when a jury made a determination that his rights had not been violated. Excluding from evidence a transcript of the interrogation was not erroneous, as nothing in it suggested coercion or a threat of harm. Loritz v. San Diego County, No. 05-56613, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 10167 (9th Cir.).

Malicious Prosecution

     Police officers had probable cause to arrest and prosecute a suspect after a woman identified him as her assailant, and that probable cause defeated a malicious prosecution claim under Illinois law. Lockheart v. Drapiewski, No. 05-2816, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9865 (7th Cir.).

Public Protection: Disturbed/Suicidal Persons

     Police officers did not violate a man's rights by using pepper spray on him in the back seat of their car, where they placed him after finding him intoxicated. The officers feared that he was suicidal, based on his behavior, and were trying to assist him. He was unsecured in the backseat of the car because he was uncooperative, and he started kicking the plexiglass separating the front and backseats, and beating his head on it. The pepper spray was only used after it was clear that repeated orders would not cause him to stop this behavior, and after the man was given a warning about the use of the spray, and was motivated by a fear that the man might harm himself. After they cleaned the residue of the pepper spray off of his face outside the police/fire station, he attempted to stand up, despite their statements that he should not try to do so, and fell, hitting his head and suffering injuries that allegedly led to his death from a swelling on his brain. The court found that the decedent would not have suffered his fatal fall except for his own conduct in disregarding the warnings of the defendant officers, so that they could not be held liable for his death. Cabaniss v. City of Riverside, No. 06-3546, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 8271 (6th Cir.).

Public Protection: Motoring Public and Pedestrians

****Editor's Case Alert****

     City and police officers were not liable, under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, for the death of a child struck as he crossed a street on foot by a vehicle that an officer lent to an informant. The appeals court ruled that, even if the city had a custom of encouraging officers to provide vehicles to informants with known histories of alcohol or drug use in exchange for information, that was insufficient for liability. Persons allegedly placed in danger as a result of those actions were not intentionally or recklessly placed in such danger, nor were the alleged actions conscience shocking. The appeals court also rejected claims based on an alleged failure to adequately investigate the accident, since there was no statutory, common law, or constitutional right to an investigation. Mitchell v. McNeil, No. 06-5631, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11326 (6th Cir.).

Public Protection: 911 Systems

     Firefighters, paramedics, and an emergency medical technician were not liable for the death of a man having an epileptic seizure based on claims that they used excessive force in restraining him after responding to a 911 call. They were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law holding that paramedics answering such an emergency request for help made a Fourth Amendment "seizure" of the person they were attempting to assist by restraining him. The decedent was not in custody, so that any failure to provide appropriate medical treatment was not a violation of substantive due process. The court also ruled that the state-created danger doctrine did not apply. Peete v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, No. 06-5321, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11959 (6th Cir.).

Pursuit: Law Enforcement

     City was entitled to summary judgment in lawsuit concerning injuries suffered by a bystander in a crash at the conclusion of the police pursuit of a stolen vehicle following an aggravated robbery and car jacking. The city's evidence addressed the role of each officer and how they assessed both the need for the pursuit and the risk factors involved in conducting the pursuit, while the plaintiff's evidence, testimony of an expert witness, assessed the risks of the pursuit, but never addressed the factor of the need for the pursuit. There was sufficient undisputed evidence that the officers had acted in good faith, and the plaintiff failed to show that no reasonably prudent officer could have assessed the need and risks as the police officers did in this case. The Texas Supreme Court entered a judgment dismissing the case. City of San Antonio v. Ytuarte, No. 05-0991, 2007 Tex. Lexis 411 (Tex.).

     In a lawsuit brought over the death of a pursued motorcycle rider and serious injuries suffered by his passenger, the appeals court upheld summary judgment for the pursuing officers, the city, and the police department on a federal civil rights claim. There was no evidence that there was any contact between an officer's car and the motorcycle, and no evidence that the officers acted in a manner which was shocking to the conscience and intended to cause harm which was unrelated to a legitimate government interest. Steen v. Myers, No. 06-1771, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11887 (7th Cir.).

Race or National Origin Discrimination: Racial Profiling

     African-American occupants of a car, who were stopped and then arrested when allegedly found in possession of cocaine, in stating that they were subjected to unlawful racial profiling, and that ranking police officers had "allowed" a violation of their constitutional rights through racial profiling made only an "unsupported conclusion." They failed to provide any supporting facts. The claims of plaintiffs against the individual defendants were therefore dismissed. Claims against state police troopers in their official capacities were claims against the state of New Jersey, and were therefore also dismissed as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Arnold v. State of New Jersey, Civ. No. 03-3997, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 33982 (D.N.J.).

Search and Seizure: Home/Business

     Officers who searched the plaintiff's house without a warrant were entitled to qualified immunity because the information they had at the time of their entry indicated to them that a number of her dogs, seen and heard barking inside the apparently uninhabited, partially renovated house, lacking heat and electricity on a cold day, were in urgent need of assistance. There was no clearly established law as to whether officers could make a warrantless entry into a home to provide emergency assistance to animals. Shapiro v. City of Glen Cove, No. 05-3827, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12138 (2nd Cir.).

     Fire inspectors and deputies executing a valid inspection warrant for a building were entitled to detain a man on the premises while doing so. They did not violate his rights by then issuing him a citation, even though his wife held the title to the property, because the city's fire code allowed them to issue citations to any responsible person on the premises. The plaintiff also failed to show that the inspection was substantially motivated by his prior litigation against the city. Vaccaro v. Carson City, No. 05-15843, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 10930 (9th Cir.).

     An officer who entered the plaintiff's bedroom without a warrant had an objectively reasonable good-faith belief that he had obtained a valid consent to search the bedroom from the plaintiff's father, and to take whatever items he needed. Additionally, there was no evidence to show that the bedroom door was locked before the officer entered, or that the officer had any reason to believe that the father did not share authority over the bedroom. Hughes v. Coconut Creek Police Department, No. 06-14537, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12074 (11th Cir.).

     Plaintiff failed to show that a police officer assisted and conspired with two private citizens to burglarize her home and steal her possessions. While the officer was shown to have met with one of the private citizens on the morning of the burglary, evidence showed that the meeting involved a complaint about a separate crime. Any allegation that the officer had prior knowledge of the plans for the burglary were simply "unsubstantiated speculation." Ostensen v. Suffolk County, No. 05-4456, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12183 (2nd Cir.).

Search and Seizure: Search Warrant

     Plaintiff in lawsuit over the alleged unlawful search of a woman's apartment pursuant to a warrant was not entitled to an order compelling the city and officers who obtained the warrant to reveal the identity of the confidential information whose information was used to provide probable cause for the warrant. The plaintiff failed to show how the identity of the informant had anything to do with whether it was illegal to have sought to obtain a search warrant, arrest the plaintiff and search her apartment based on the information they had. Guzman v. City of Chicago, No. 05C6617, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28377 (N.D. Ill.).

     Officer was not entitled to summary judgment in property owner's lawsuit alleging that he obtained a search warrant for his house by use of an affidavit containing false information. While an informant allegedly told officers that there were stolen goods in a white shed near the plaintiff's home, the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant stated that the informant told the police that the stolen goods were in the house. The plaintiff claimed that this false information was used in the affidavit on purpose in order to provide an opportunity to search his house for drugs without probable cause to do so. The trial judge found that there was evidence that the officer had an "ulterior motive" for searching the plaintiff's house for drugs, as indicated by the fact that the search of the house continued for two hours after the stolen property sought was found in the shed. Durfee v. Rich, No. 02-10041, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 23340 (E.D. Mich.).

Search and Seizure: Vehicle

     Motorist who was stopped by a state trooper for driving 61 miles per hour in a 30 m.p.h zone failed to show that the officer acted unreasonably in detaining him for an additional four minutes after he wrote a traffic ticket, in order to await the arrival of a requested police dog, and an additional twelve minutes to search his vehicle after the dog alerted to the passenger side of the car. All of the officer's actions were reasonable under the circumstances, including the motorist's strong body odor, which the officer thought might indicate drug use, and information that the officer had concerning the motorist's prior drug arrest, and his observation of the motorist's pupils, which were small, and which could be indicative of drug use. Morris v. Dean, No. 06-14739, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 10832 (11th Cir.).

     Motorist's claim that a traffic stop and laws that required him to have a state issued license, vehicle registration, and license plates to drive a vehicle, rather than using what he called "private property identification plates" violated his constitutional right to travel were meritless. The court noted that these requirements at issue, if the motorist did not comply with them, only denied him one method of transportation--a self-driven car, and therefore did not impermissibly burden his right to travel. Dean v. Honish, No. 07-1369, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11197 (7th Cir.).

Sexual Assault and Harassment

     Woman allegedly fondled by a deputy sheriff who attempted to kiss her while he had been on duty for the county failed to show that the county's lack of policies regarding sexual harassment caused his conduct. The deputy himself acknowledged that, due to his law enforcement training, he knew that it was wrong to touch females in an inappropriate manner when he came into contact with them in the course of his duties. The plaintiff was, however, awarded $25,000 against the deputy himself, who had come to her home in response to her 911 call seeking help for her brother, who had overdosed on drugs. Currie v. Haywood County, Tennessee, No. 06-5683, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 8530 (6th Cir.).

Strip Searches

     Federal appeals court upholds jury's award of $5 in nominal damages and $25,000 in punitive damages to arrestee on his claim that a strip search performed by police officers was unreasonable. While the officers claimed that the strip search was required in order to stop the arrestee from destroying drugs found on his person after a lawful arrest, no reasonable jury could conclude that this justification was reasonable. Two routine searches of the arrestee's person did not reveal any weapons or contraband and a narcotics dog did not demonstrate any interest in the arrestee. Wilson v. Aquino, No. 05-7053, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12285 (2nd Cir.).

Wiretapping & Video Surveillance

     Seven individuals with drug convictions claimed that their telephone calls had been intercepted after individuals and entities associated with a city and a county obtained wiretap authorizations by using falsified warrant applications. A federal appeals court found that the principles stated in Heck v. Humphrey, No. 93-6188, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) barred their claims for declaratory relief or damages, since their convictions had not been overturned on appeal or otherwise set aside. One claim for judicial deception, asserted by their lawyer, whose phone calls had also been intercepted, remained. Whitaker v. Garcetti, No. 05-55629, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11012 (9th Cir.).

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Campus Security: Campus Safety CD-ROM. This CD-ROM contains more than 50 publications and resource links related to drugs, alcohol, and violence on campus. It also contains a video, Because Things Happen Every Day: Responding to Teenage Victims of Crime, produced by the National Center from Victims of Crime and sponsored by the COPS Office (Office of Community Oriented Policing Services). View contents on-line. Order a copy.

     Human Trafficking: "Investigating Human Trafficking," by Kevin Bales and Steven Lize, 76 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin No. 4, pgs. 24-31 (April 2007)."Law enforcement agencies can take practical steps to effectively address cases of human trafficking." [PDF] [HTML]

     Money Laundering: 2007 National Money Laundering Strategy. Report describing current efforts of federal agencies, including the Department of the Treasury, Justice Department, and Department of Homeland Security to combat money laundering. Discusses goals, including continuing to safeguard the banking system, enhancing financial transparency in money services businesses, stemming the flow of illicit bulk cash out of the U.S., attacking trade-based money laundering at home and abroad, promoting transparency in the ownership of legal entities, examining the anti-money laundering regulatory oversight and enforcement at casinos, implementing and enforcing anti-money laundering regulations for the insurance industry, and supporting global anti-money laundering capacity building and enforcement efforts, as well as improving "how we measure our progress." Includes appendixes on U.S. money laundering threat assessment, anti-money laundering statistics, law enforcement data and intelligence centers, and the strategic use of asset forfeiture. (112 pgs. pdf format).

     Training: Law Enforcement Training Database. Bureau of Justice Assistance. A catalog of all federally funded and supported training available to state and local law enforcement officials. Each database listing includes the training provider, a course description, eligibility criteria, and contact information.

     • Abbreviations of Law Reports, laws and agencies used in our publications.

     • AELE's list of recently-noted civil liability law resources.