---

 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: Physical

     A battery claim by a protester allegedly hit by an officer was barred under a Florida state statute due to his alleged participation in a riot which occurred after an unlawful demonstration became violent. He linked arms with other demonstrators and refused orders to disperse. Court also rejects the claim that officers were inadequately trained, as significant training was provided in the use of batons. No evidence was found that supervisory personnel or another officer saw the demonstrator being hit but failed to intervene. Owaki v. City of Miami, No. 06-20737-CIV, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 44921 (S.D. Fla.).

     Officers who removed a man from his vehicle by using a "twist lock" were entitled to qualified immunity on his Fourth Amendment claim because reasonable officers could disagree as to whether the use of this twist lock was lawful under the circumstances. The officers had found the man in a fetal position in the back of a car while responding to a call reporting a "man down." The officer who applied the twist lock claimed that he only did so after he observed a handgun in the man's pocket. Novitsky v. City of Aurora, No. 05-1169, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 15959 (10th Cir.).

Defenses: Qualified Immunity

     The defense of qualified immunity available to officers in federal civil rights lawsuits filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 does not apply to claims arising out of the same incident asserted in a California state law civil rights lawsuit filed under Cal. Civil Code Sec. 52.1 for interference with statutory or constitutional rights. The case involved claims that deputies acted improperly in connection with the plaintiffs' detention, the search and seizure of their car, and the subsequent search of their home. While the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity on a federal civil rights claim because certain actions, even if unlawful, were "reasonable mistakes," an intermediate California appeals court ruled that the defense of qualified immunity does not apply as to the California state civil rights claim, requiring further proceedings. Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, No. B186764, 2007 Cal. App. Lexis 1267 (Cal. App.).

     Operators of daycare center failed to show that an investigator violated their due process rights during an investigation of their facility for alleged licensing violations. The evidence only showed that an investigation was begun in response to a complaint from a disgruntled former employee, that the investigator made statements to the plaintiffs and reported violations of child care regulations to an agency, some of which may have been inaccurate, and that allegations concerning the accusation were described in notices sent to the plaintiffs, which may have been available to the public. Ultimately, the investigation was dropped, and the allegations against the facility were withdrawn. These facts did not allege conduct that "shocks the conscience" in violation of due process. The investigator was entitled to qualified immunity, as no constitutional violation occurred. Ward v. Anderson, No. 06-8014, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 17531(10th Cir.).

Defenses: Sovereign Immunity

     The Department of Homeland Security, as an agency of the U.S. government, has not waived its sovereign immunity to suit. A lawsuit against employees of the Department in their official capacity under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and Sec. 1985 was basically a lawsuit against the government, requiring dismissal of the lawsuit, which asserted claims against Department employees who work for the Division of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Federal civil rights claims against federal employees in their official capacity under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) are also barred on the basis of sovereign immunity. Cuevas v. Dept. of Homeland Security, No. 05-15649, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11841 (9th Cir.).

Defenses: Statute of Limitations

     A businessman arrested for allegedly selling furniture after his license was suspended could not pursue malicious prosecution claims when he filed his lawsuit 2-1/2 years after the prosecution against him was abandoned, nor could he pursue a false arrest claim filed 3 years after his arrest. Both claims were barred by the statute of limitations. An offer by the defendants to drop the charges against him if he agreed not to sue them did not alter the result when he found out that the prosecution had already been dismissed the day after the offer was made, and, as a result, did not sign the release of claims the defendants provided. Shane v. Tracy, No. 88479, 2007 Ohio App. Lexis 3176 (8th Dist., Cuyahoga County).

     Arrestee failed to prevent any viable legal theory or point to any specific facts which could alter the trial court's decision that his lawsuit was filed after the applicable two-year statute of limitations expired, and was therefore time-barred. Watson v. James, No. 06-6350, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18012 (10th Cir.).

Dogs

     The force used against an arrestee, including the use of a K-9 police dog, were objectively reasonable. While his injuries were "severe," they resulted from his own actions in running away and hiding in a dark and densely vegetated swamp area to avoid being captured. Even if the officer were assumed to have used excessive force, he would be entitled to qualified immunity, as he had not violated any clearly established constitutional right. The court also ruled that the officer, having not acted maliciously or in bad faith, was not liable for assault and battery under Florida state law. Pace v. City of Palmetto, No. 8:05-CV-1221, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 42407 (M.D. Fla.).

Domestic Violence

     Federal appeals court reinstates lawsuit by woman who claimed that when she tried to report her boyfriend's assault to deputies after she broke up with him, they would not allow her to file a complaint, and that they subsequently took her to a psychiatric center for commitment, which occurred because they lied about her actions. Her boyfriend was a town employee, and allegedly a personal friend of a number of the deputies. The appeals court found that the trial court improperly disregarded evidence which was sufficient to have allowed a jury to find that one or more of the deputies lied to get her committed, and that the plaintiff presented enough evidence that the deputies acted to have her committed in retaliation for her trying to file a complaint. Meyer v. Board of County Commissioners of Harper County, Oklahoma, No. 04-6106, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 8629 (10th Cir.).

Failure to Disclose Evidence, and Loss of Evidence/Preservation of Evidence

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

     Police officers were not entitled to summary judgment in a lawsuit claiming that they denied the plaintiff his constitutional rights by concealing allegedly exculpatory evidence. The plaintiff spent over 17 years incarcerated for a double homicide that he insists he did not commit, and he claims that Illinois state police officers, from the beginning, knowingly possessed and concealed evidence of his innocence and never disclosed this evidence to him, throughout his trial, his appeals, and most of his post-conviction proceedings. He was finally released in 2004 after a federal court concluded that "acquittal was reasonably probable if the jury had heard all of the evidence." The lawsuit further claims that Illinois state police officials who were not involved in the case at the beginning learned about the existing exculpatory evidence and that the state had possessed this evidence all along, but that, rather than advise a state appeals court that the state had prosecuted the wrong man, they "kept mum and took steps actively to conceal the exculpatory evidence." Qualified immunity, the federal appeals court ruled, was not available to the defendants because the due process right of a defendant to be told about exculpatory evidence is clearly established in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and the cases which follow it. Steidl v. Fermon, No. 06-2017 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16996 (7th Cir.).

False Arrest/Imprisonment: No Warrant

     Officers did not have probable cause, as a matter of law, to arrest a man for trespassing in the gated area of a cooperative building under any statute identified by either the officers or the city, so that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on his false arrest claim. The plaintiff claimed that he had merely entered to wait for a friend who was a resident on the property, and there was no evidence that he was attempting to enter a dwelling unit or otherwise engage in unlawful conduct on the property. The jury, under the facts presented, could also find that officers had conducted an unreasonable search of the plaintiff, including a strip search, when the arrest, found to be unjustified, was only for a minor offense, and there was no reason to believe he had contraband or a weapon. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity, and the federal trial court's dismissal of state law claims in the case was erroneous, as was summary judgment on a claim against the city for an alleged unlawful policy or custom, based on evidence that police training concerning the circumstances of the arrest led an officer to believe that presence on a property in the manner that the plaintiff had been found, even for five to ten minutes, could be sufficient for an arrest. Edgerly v. City & County of San Francisco, No. 05-15080, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16949(9th Cir.).

     Sheriff's deputies who arrested a man during a public town hall meeting, based on their belief that his presence there violated a protective order against harassment obtained by a married couple who were also in attendance, were entitled to qualified immunity from his false arrest claim. The arrestee had arrived at the meeting prior to the couple, was present because of an item on the agenda relevant to himself and his family, and had not followed the couple there in order to harass them, since they had arrived after him. Despite this, the deputies did not act unreasonably in believing that they had probable cause to arrest him based on the language of the protective order. Wagner v. Washington County, No. 06-2045 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16586 (7th Cir.).

     Police officers had probable cause to arrest tenant locked out of rented home after allegedly failing to pay rent Officers found, when they came to the home in response to a phone call from a neighbor, that the tenant had broken a window and entered the home, and reasonably believed that he was engaged in a burglary. Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, No. 06-3357, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 17896 (6th Cir.).

Firearms Related: Intentional Use

     Police officers acted properly in shooting and killing an allegedly emotionally disturbed 19-year-old, 300-pound man, 6'7" tall, who was attacking an officer with a sword, after they came to his residence in response to his mother's concern that he might harm himself because of depression over failing to get a job as an airport security guard. The decedent allegedly continued to stab the officer despite initial shots that struck him, responding by saying "ow," but otherwise continuing his assault. Both federal civil rights and state law liability claims were rejected. Hayek v. City of St. Paul, No. 06-3802, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 15482 (8th Cir.).

First Amendment

     Officers did not violate a woman's free speech rights by removing her from a county office where she voiced her opposition to a new county payroll tax and stated that a county official was a "lying son of a bitch," since the office was not dedicated as a "public forum." An arresting officer had probable cause to take her into custody for disrupting the office and refusing to leave when asked to do so. She had announced that she was going to remain there, moving in and refusing to leave until she got her "$70 back." The restrictions on her speech were content-neutral and reasonable, and based on her interference with the functioning of the office. Helms v. Zubaty, No. 06-6360 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 17156 (6th Cir.).

     Federal trial court acted erroneously in dismissing an anti-abortion demonstrator's civil rights lawsuit when he claimed that officers outside of an abortion clinic arrested him for the content of his speech there, rather than for any trespass on clinic property, in violation of his First Amendment rights. Logsdon v. Hains, No. 06-4085 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16023 (6th Cir.).

     While a federal trial court found that an ordinance restricting the location and manner of operation of a county's only existing adult bookstore was content-neutral and aimed at preventing negative secondary effects of adult businesses, a federal appeals court, while believing that the main purpose of the county in passing the ordinance was to regulate adult businesses' secondary effects, found that there was a genuine issue of disputed fact as to whether the cases and research studies relied on by the county were reasonably related to doing so. The store was in an area far away from any residential area or other business. Further proceedings were ordered on the store's First Amendment claims. Abilene Retail v. Board of Commissioners of Dickinson County, Kansas, No. 05-3473, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16276 (10th Cir.).

Forfeiture

     A city ordinance providing for the forfeiture to the city of a car used to commit criminal actions prohibited by state law, such as solicitation of prostitution or acquiring controlled substances, was preempted by existing state statutes on the subject of forfeiture of vehicles, and void under a provision of the California state constitution. O'Connell v. City of Stockton, No. S135160, 2007 Cal. Lexis 7879.

Negligence: Dead Body Identification/Handling

     A county coroner had no mandatory statutory duty to embalm or refrigerate the body of a murder victim or otherwise ensure that the remains continued to be intact. The family of the victim could not recover damages under either state law or federal civil rights law for the grief and anguish they allegedly suffered after observing the victim's decomposed and "unrecognizable" body after the coroner had retained it for approximately a week. The court also noted that, under federal civil rights law, the family had no constitutionally protected property right in the body. Perryman v. County of Los Angeles, No. B194373, 2007 Cal. App. Lexis 1263.

Off-Duty/Color of Law: Firearms Related

     A jury's verdict for the plaintiffs on a negligence claim by the estate of a motorist shot and killed by an off-duty officer, awarding damages of $242,400, was overturned as inconsistent with their verdict for the defendants on both assault and battery and excessive force claims and the jury's answer to a written interrogatory. The off-duty officer had seen the motorist in a parked car, along with a "known prostitute," allegedly engaging in sexual activities, and the motorist was uncooperative after stepping out of the vehicle. The jury's response to the interrogatory rejected the officer's version of the events and his claim that he shot in self-defense. Additionally, any negligence of the officer in making a stop of the motorist as he attempted to drive away did not proximately cause the shooting death, and therefore could not justify the damages awarded for the shooting death. Hundley v. DC, No. 05-7152, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 17517 (D.C. Cir.).

Police Plaintiffs: Firearms Related

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

     If the facts were as stated by an undercover officer, shot by a fellow officer after reporting that he had already been shot in the area by a perpetrator, the actions of the shooting officer were not objectively reasonable. A reasonable officer, arriving on the scene after there was a report of an officer shot, would have recognized that the undercover officer did not pose an immediate threat to anyone. While he had a pistol, he dropped it on the ground, and was not pointing it at the officers or reaching for it. He was also not actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade the officers by flight, but was kneeling in the street under a streetlight by himself, and waving his arms above his head trying to attract attention. Further, the shooting officer failed to attempt to give the undercover officer any commands or warnings before firing at him, and the undercover officer did not match the description of the suspect sought, who had shot him. Ngo v. Storlie, No. 06-2771, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 17798 (8th Cir.).

Police Plaintiffs: Privacy

     Television station's broadcasting of the identity of two former undercover officers and their undercover status while reporting on allegations that they were involved in a sexual assault incident did not support claims for either invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress under New Mexico state law. The officers were later cleared of any involvement in the sexual assault. Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., No. 06-2001, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16720 (10th Cir.).

Property

     A man's former roommate, either alone, or acting together with others, allegedly auctioned off a lot of his personal property without his consent, and without giving him any of the proceeds of the sale. The county sheriff and a county official, however, could not be held liable for violation of the property owner's constitutional rights in connection with the sale when they did not conduct the sale or actively assist it. Their alleged misconduct essentially amounted to failing to act to stop the sale, after the plaintiff objected to it. Their mere acquiescence in the actions of private parties was not a deprivation of property under color of state law for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Jackman v. McMillan, No. 06-2474, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 8880 (3rd Cir.).

Public Protection: Motoring Public

     A motorist claimed that she was injured while moving her disabled vehicle, after she was instructed to do so by a police officer who believed that it posed a traffic hazard on a busy road. The car lacked power, but the officer allegedly told her to "just put it in neutral and push it back, steering with the steering wheel. "He allegedly told her that if she did not move it, it would be towed. She was injured when it started rolling backwards down the incline of a driveway, dragging her face first and face down, down a hill, until it collided with some trees. A federal appeals court reversing a jury award of $1 in nominal damages and a trial court award of attorneys' fees, found that no reasonable and properly instructed jury could have found a violation of constitutional rights under either the Fourth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause under these circumstances. Lockhart-Bembery v. Sauro, No. 06-1720, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18844 (1st Cir.).

Public Protection: Rescue Situations

     County law enforcement officers, under the facts alleged by a mother in a lawsuit over the death of her son, could be found to have taken actions which increased the risk that he would die from his bullet wounds, to the extent that they allegedly prevented other people from either transporting him to a hospital or assisting him. The facts alleged were also sufficient to establish a claim for negligent provision of medical services by county paramedics. Additionally, the appeals court found that the officers and paramedics were not entitled to immunity under California state law for their actions, when the plaintiff claimed that they acted in bad faith or with gross negligence. Mitchell v. County of San Diego, No. 05-56657, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16155 (9th Cir.).

Pursuits: Law Enforcement

     City and officer were not liable for the death of two passengers killed in a collision with a vehicle being pursued at high speed by a city policy officer. Even if the officer may have violated the city's pursuit policy, her actions did not indicate that she had an intent to harm the decedents or the occupants of the pursued vehicle or that her actions "shocked the conscience." Meals v. City of Memphis, No. 05-5953, 05-5974, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16386 (6th Cir.).

     A deputy's conduct was objectively reasonable when he pursued a motorcyclist who refused to stop in response to his flashing blue lights and siren, with the eight-mile pursuit resulting in a collision which caused the death of the motorcycle rider. His actions in pursuing the motorcyclist, who was under the influence of methamphetamine, and who was observed crossing double yellow lines while passing a vehicle on a curve, were necessary to respond to a situation putting other motorists at risk of harm. Abney v. Coe, No. 06-1607, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 15841 (4th Cir.).

     After an officer stopped a vehicle whose license plate was falling off, the driver drove away, resulting in a chase, and in the first 30 seconds of that chase, the pursued motorist's vehicle crossed the median strip and struck another car, killing one occupant and severely injuring two others. Upholding summary judgment for the county and its chief of police, a federal appeals court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the officer's actions caused the accident, death, and injuries. The court reasoned that it was possible that the pursued motorist would have crossed to median strip in trying to pass slower moving cars even in the absence of the officer's pursuit. While the plaintiffs argued that the county had not properly trained its officers, and had a policy amounting to "pursue at all costs," which failed to provide consideration to the safety of the public, an examination into county policy would only be relevant if a constitutional violation were first found. The court found no violation of the constitutional due process rights of the occupants of the vehicle hit by the pursued motorist. Best v. Cobb County, Georgia, No. 07-11007, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 15877 (11th Cir.).

RICO

     An arrestee who was convicted of coercion in the first degree and his wife claimed that various governmental officials, and the wife's father and brother "set up" the arrestee as part of a scheme to protect the father and brother from criminal responsibility for sexually abusing the wife, and that the arrestee only pled guilty to the charges against him because of duress. They claimed that the defendants engaged in witness intimidation and extortion and that their conduct violated provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 1961-1968, and caused the cancellation of the arrestee's infomerical contract. The federal trial court held that the plaintiff arrestee could not use the RICO statute to challenge the validity of a conviction that had not been overturned, and that the wife did not show that she suffered any injury to her own property or business as a result of the defendants' alleged conduct. The arrestee also failed to show that the alleged RICO violations, including actions of witness intimidation and a parking ticket extortion scheme, caused the damage to his economic interests in the infomercial contract, and therefore also could not pursue a RICO claim. The lawsuit was dismissed. Moore v. Guesno, No. 05-CV-6178, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 34406 (W.D.N.Y.).

Search and Seizure: Home/Business

     A woman shot by police officers who came to her apartment after she allegedly threatened to kill herself with a shotgun failed to show that the search of her apartment violated her civil rights under Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 52.1. That statute requires, for liability, that constitutional rights be violated as a result of a threat, intimidation, or coercion, which was not shown, even if the plaintiff could show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, the search did not take place until two hours after the plaintiff had been taken to the hospital for treatment of her wounds, so that the use of force was not related to the search. A federal appeals court upheld the jury's verdict for the city and police officers on claims of both excessive use of force and under the California statute. Jackson v. City of Fresno, No. 05-16857, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11838 (9th Cir.).

     Officers trying to apprehend a potentially armed suspect, with probable cause to arrest him for assault, did not violate the rights of a woman and her daughter when they entered the yard surrounding the building containing their apartment, and inserted a rifle in the interior of the mother's bedroom. The woman and her daughter did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the front yard of the building so that entry into the yard did not violate their Fourth Amendment rights. Any seizure of the mother and daughter which could be found to have occurred was also found to be objectively reasonable under the circumstances. The officers' actions allegedly included pointing weapons at the mother and daughter and telling them to return to the apartment. Reeves v. Churchich, No. 04-4240, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9301 (10th Cir.).

     Defendant officers who conducted a raid on the plaintiff's home were not entitled to summary judgment since they allegedly entered his residence without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances, and based only on the invitation of their informant. There was no legal basis for the informant being able to invite police officers into the home merely on the basis that he had been invited to enter. The defendant officers were not entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances. Callahan v. Millard County, No. 06-4135, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16853 (10th Cir.).

     In a lawsuit by apartment tenants challenging the searches of their residences under administrative search warrants issued by a city, a federal appeals court upheld the validity of the warrants. Under the city's ordinance, the administrative warrants, used to perform inspections of buildings were issued without a showing of probable cause that a particular building might contain code violations. The issue, the court found, was whether the scheme of inspections adopted by the ordinance was based on reasonable administrative or legislative standards and served valid public purposes. Whether there were or were not violations in the particular buildings or not was not relevant to that analysis, according to the court. Jones v. Wildgen, No. 06-3384, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18008 (10th Cir.).

Search and Seizure: Person

     California appeals court rejects state constitutional challenge to "pat down" search policy requiring a search of all persons attending football games at a San Francisco stadium. The policy was adopted at the direction of the National Football League. The court found that those in attendance at the games could not show that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy which encompassed not being subjected to such searches, particularly since advance notice of the search policy was provided. Accordingly, by deciding to attend the football games, they gave implied consent to the searches when they purchased their season tickets. Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd., No. A114945, 2007 Cal. App. Lexis 1186, 153 Cal. App. 4th 396 (Cal. App. 4th Dist.).

•Return to the Contents menu.

      Child Protection: "Child Abductions," by David M. Allender, 76 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin No. 7, pg. 1 (July 2007). "Child abductions pose one of the most critical offenses that law enforcement officers handle."

     Child Protection: "Child Pornography Web Sites," by Wade Luders, 76 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin No. 7, pg. 17 (July 2007). . "Awareness of techniques that online child pornographers use will assist investigators in combating this growing threat."

     Hostage Negotiations: "Understanding Stockholm Syndrome" by Nathalie de Fabrique, Stephen J. Romano, Gregory M. Vecchi, and Vincent B. Van Hasselt, 76 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin No. 7, pg. 10 (July 2007). "Crisis negotiators can gain an understanding of this complex phenomenon and successfully address situations where it occurs."

     Search and Seizure Issues: "Legal Considerations in Using GPS," by Keith Hodges, 76 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin No. 7, pg. 25(July 2007). "Law enforcement officers must be aware of the legal issues that arise with the installation of GPS technology, as well as its monitoring."

     Statistics: "Black Victims of Violent Crime." Presents findings about violent crime experienced by non-Hispanic blacks. Data on nonfatal violent victimization (rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault) are drawn from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Data on homicides are drawn from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program’s Supplementary Homicide Reports. Comparisons are made with the victimization experience of other racial/ethnic groups. Findings include violent victimization rates by victim characteristics. Also examined are crime characteristics, including weapon use, offender race, police reporting, and police response to violent crime incidents. Trends in violent victimization are also discussed. Highlights include the following: Blacks were victims of an estimated 805,000 nonfatal violent crimes and of about 8,000 homicides in 2005. Blacks accounted for 13% of the U.S. population in 2005, but were victims in 15% of all nonfatal violent crimes and nearly half of all homicides. During the 5-year period from 2001 to 2005, the average annual rate of nonfatal violent victimization against blacks was 29 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. For whites the rate was 23 per 1,000, and for Hispanics, 24 per 1,000. 08/07 NCJ 214258 Press release | Acrobat file (216K) | ASCII file (22K) | Spreadsheets (zip format 21K)

     Terrorism, Homeland Security, and National Security Issues: The National Intelligence Estimate: The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland (National Intelligence Council, July 17, 2007). A report stating that the U.S. currently "is in a heightened threat environment," and predicting that al Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah may engage in attacks on "prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets" in the U.S. for the purpose of producing "mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and fear among the U.S. population."

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

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