---

 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

     Officers did not use excessive force in response to a belligerent motorist who shouted and refused to comply with their directions to step to the curb, lower his voice, and calm down. When he resisted their attempts to place handcuffs on him, they tackled him to the ground and applied arm locks for purposes of restraint. After that too proved unsuccessful, they then used pepper spray. The court ruled that no reasonable officer would have thought that the defendant officers applied excessive force under the circumstances, and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Mierzwa v. U.S., No. 07-3362, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13523 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

Assault and Battery: Physical

     An arrestee's claim that a federal marshal used excessive force against him during the arrest was not barred by his convictions for resisting arrest and assaulting federal officers. Those convictions did not exclude the possibility that officers used excessive force in response to the arrestee's unlawful actions during a lawful arrest. The federal appeals court, therefore, overturned the dismissal of a civil rights lawsuit against the marshal and other officers. Lora-Pena v. FBI, No. 07-3511, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13085 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

     Journalists claimed that FBI agents, while executing a search warrant at a condominium building, grabbed and assaulted them, and used pepper spray and metal batons against them when they entered a gated area. The agents were using the building's fences and security structure in an attempt to restrict the flow of people into the area, and allegedly did not give them a chance to exit before using force against them. The court found that there was no special First Amendment right of access by the press to enter property that was not in the public domain. The court found, however, that some of the journalists' Fourth Amendment claims were improperly dismissed. The appeals court ruled that "mere obstinance" by a crowd did not justify the use of force when there is no showing that crowd members posed a public safety threat or that any other law enforcement considerations were at risk. The court ruled, therefore, that Fourth Amendment excessive force claims by individual journalists could proceed, while the rejection of all First Amendment claims was upheld. Asociacion de Periodistas de Puerto Rico v. Mueller, No. 07-2196, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12783 (1st Cir.).

Assault and Battery: Tasers/Stun Guns

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

     Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on claims that they used excessive force in deploying a Taser on a 6-year-old, 53-pound minor, allegedly causing permanent and severe injuries. The child was placed in a school principal's office after being disruptive in a class. He broke a picture frame in the office, and police officers allegedly found him standing with a piece of glass in his hand. One officer kneeled in front of the child while the other sat in front of him, and then moved within one foot of him just before using the Taser. At the time of the incident, which was 2003, it was "obvious" that the Fourth Amendment prohibited the use of the Taser under these circumstances, according to the appeals court. Moretta v. Abbott, No. 07-10795, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 11749 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).

Disability Discrimination

     The state of Pennsylvania was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity against claims asserted by a deaf mother and her deaf son contending that their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12131, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794, were violated by the failure to provide them with a qualified sign language interpreter during their arrest or while they were incarcerated at a county prison. Congress abrogated any such immunity that the state might have in connection with these claims. Gonzales v. Pennsylvania, No. 07-2901, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13514 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

Dogs

     While officers were attempting to catch a fleeing suspect, their police dog bit a man who was in a friend's backyard. The officer controlling the dog allegedly failed to immediately call off the dog, even though the man, who was an older white male, had no resemblance to the young black suspect being pursued. While a reasonable jury could have concluded that this was an excessive use of force, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on Fourth Amendment excessive force claims. It was not clearly established that the use of non-deadly canine force to attempt to catch a fleeing suspect without giving a verbal warning was a Fourth Amendment violation. Trammell v. Thomason, No. 3:06-cv-984, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 44210 (M.D. Fla.).

     Use of a police dog to catch a suspect running away from a stolen car and hiding in a swamp at night did not violate the suspect's rights. The use of the dog was not objectively unreasonable. The court also rejected state law claims because the officer did not act in bad faith or in a malicious manner. Pace v. Ahler, No. 07-13045, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13228 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).

Domestic Violence

    A federal court dismissed civil rights claims by the estate of a woman allegedly murdered by a sheriff's deputy, her ex-husband, after other deputies allegedly failed to arrest him following her domestic violence call. The civil rights claim was based on a "class-of-one" equal protection argument, but the plaintiff failed to show that the deputies, in failing to arrest their fellow deputy, had adopted a policy directed at discriminating against the decedent. Florida state law negligence claims against the county sheriff remain at issue. The Estate of Hawkins v. Eslinger, No. 6:07-cv-1261, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 39492 (M.D. Fla.).

False Arrest/Imprisonment: No Warrant

     Police officer who saw a motorist commit a traffic violation had probable cause to make an arrest for reckless driving and did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights in doing so even if he lacked the authority under Arkansas state law to make traffic arrests on the interstate highway. Rose v. City of Mulberry, No. 07-1645 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14334 (8th Cir.).

     When police officers had probable cause to arrest a motorist for not using an illuminated headlight after dark, their motive for making the arrest were irrelevant and the arrest was lawful despite an alleged First Amendment retaliation claim. There were, however, triable issues of fact concerning the legality and circumstances of a subsequent strip search at the police station. Scallion v. City of Hawthorne, No. 07-55144, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12034 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).

     A federal appeals court overturned summary judgment in a false arrest lawsuit filed by a discharged probationary firefighter arrested for shooting, but not killing, another firefighter. The court found that some of the facts that the trial court relied on in finding probable cause and granting summary judgment for the city and police detectives were not actually known to the detectives at the time of the arrest, so that further proceedings were required. Parsons v. City of Pontiac, No. 07-2299, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13283 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).

     Police officers had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff because of a complainant's statements concerning an incident in which he had allegedly physically attacked her, following which she ran to a neighbor's hose and told an officer that she was too fearful to return to her house. Maliha v. Faluotico, No. 07-1106, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13097 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).

     Despite a police detective's mistake confusing the name of the suspect sought, and whether a witness referred to "Ann" or "Ang," he acted reasonably in arresting the plaintiff for burglary. The plaintiff's last name was spelled almost the same as the suspect sought, and he did not act in an intentional or reckless, or plainly incompetent manner. Martel v. Town of South Windsor, No. 3:06-cv-1145, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 45931 (D. Conn.).

     There were genuine issues of fact as to whether a deputy and an arrestee's ex-husband had conspired to have her arrested for a traffic violation, prior to which the ex-husband allegedly planted, or arranged to have planted, an open bottle of wine and a bag of cocaine in her vehicle. Drug charges resulting from the stop were subsequently dismissed. Because of the factual issues about whether a conspiracy existed against the ex-wife, summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity could not be addressed on appeal. Piers v. Vandenberg, No. 07-1744, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12865 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).

     When police officers, in the aggregate, had knowledge of facts that would have warranted a prudent person to believe that a woman had committed theft, an officer's actions in detaining her, whether it constituted an investigative stop or an arrest, were justified. Morelli v. Webster, No. 07-CV-89, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 40475 (D. Maine).

     When officers allegedly arrested the plaintiff as a suspect in a robbery even though a witness to the crime made a negative identification of him, no reasonable officer could have believed that there was probable cause for the arrest if the facts were as the plaintiff claimed. A police detective, however, did nothing other than hearing the negative identification and then accurately convening it to the other officers, who made the arrest, so the detective was entitled to qualified immunity. Pitt v. D.C., Civil Action No. 01-2225, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 42737 (D.D.C.).

Firearms Related: Intentional Use

     Based on disputes about the facts of the incident in which officers shot and killed a man as he tried to flee a traffic stop, the officers were properly denied qualified immunity. While the officers claimed that they feared for their safety even under the facts alleged by the plaintiffs, those allegations were that the motorist's truck was moving non-aggressively and slowly, and could not have hit the officers, and also that it was stationary at the time of the shooting. Under those circumstances, if true, no reasonable officer could have believed that the motorist posed a threat to them. Further, under these circumstances, the officers would have had time to assess the situation before firing several times at the motorist. Officers may not, the court noted, fire at a fleeing felon who is not posing a threat to anyone. Estate of Kirby v. Duva, No. 06-1976, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13573 (6th Cir.).

     The fact that the officer who shot and killed the plaintiffs' son may have made conflicting subjective statements about her motivation for her actions did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she acted in an objectively reasonable manner in shooting the decedent, for purposes of determining whether she was entitled to qualified immunity. Given factual disputes about that, the appeals court could not rule on the issue of qualified immunity. Rocha v. Schroeder, No. 07-50916, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13598 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).

Firearms Related: Second Amendment Issues

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

     The U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, ruled that a D.C. ordinance banning handgun possession and requiring that lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded or bound by a trigger lock violates the Second Amendment. The Court found an individual constitutional right to possess a firearm for use for lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, 2008 U.S. Lexis 5268.

First Amendment

     Federal court allows civil rights claims by four demonstrators arrested while protesting a Presidential inauguration in Washington, D.C. to go forward. After some demonstrators committed acts of vandalism or other crimes, approximately 65 to 75 individuals were arrested. While the District claimed that an officer had grounds to arrest the demonstrators for rioting and parading without a permit, the officer could not make a mass arrest unless he first transmitted an order asking the crowd to disperse, and providing the crowd with a reasonable time to do so. Failure to do so violates the Fourth Amendment. The District was evidently unable to identify the demonstrators who engaged in the criminal actions during the incident, and it lacked evidence to show either that all demonstrators had done so or that the plaintiff arrestees had done so. Partial summary judgment was granted to the plaintiffs on the issue of liability. Carr v. D.C., Civil Action No. 06-00098, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 46489 (D.D.C.).

     Police officers violated the First Amendment rights of anti-abortion protesters by ordering them to move their truck, displaying graphic photos of aborted fetuses, from an area near a middle school. The individual officers, however, were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages because of the lack of clearly established precedent. There were also genuine issues of fact as to whether the officers acted improperly in searching the vehicle, or in the length of time they detained a number of the protesters. Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff Dep't, No. 05-55294 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13975 (9th Cir.).

     Further proceedings were ordered on whether public university officials' denial to a campus evangelist permission to continue a speech on school grounds violated his First Amendment or due process rights. The court found that a campus open area was a limited public forum, but also commented that the university officials in charge of enforcing an unwritten university policy concerning speech there did not appear to understand it very well. Gilles v. Garland, No. 07-3645, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13191 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).

Governmental Liability: Policy/Custom

     The U.S. Supreme Court has held that an arrestee's initial appearance before a magistrate or judge, when he learns the charges against him, and his liberty is subject to restriction, constitutes the beginning of an adversary judicial proceeding and triggers the arrestee's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. This is true whether or not a prosecutor, as distinct from a police officer, is aware of that first proceeding or involved in it. Rothgery v. Gillespie County, No. 07-440, 2008 U.S. Lexis 5057.

     In this case, Texas police arrested a man with a prior felony conviction as a felon in possession of a firearm, and brought him before a magistrate judge, as required by state law, for a mandatory Fourth Amendment probable-cause determination. At the hearing, bail was set, and the arrestee was told the accusation against him. He was sent to jail, and released after posting a surety bond. He had no money for a lawyer, and made a number of oral and written requests for an appointed lawyer, which were allegedly ignored.

     He was later indicted, rearrested, and his bail was increased, after which he was jailed when he could not post the bail. He was later assigned a lawyer, who succeeded in getting the indictment dismissed. The arrestee then sued the county for violation of civil rights, claiming that if he had been provided with an appointed lawyer within a reasonable time after the initial hearing, he would not have been indicted, rearrested, or jailed.

     The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that the plaintiff arrestee had a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at the time he first appeared in court, even if the relevant prosecutors were not then aware of, or involved in, his arrest or appearance at the hearing, and there was no indication that the officer at the appearance had any power to commit the state to prosecute. The Court noted that the federal government, the District of Columbia, and 43 states take the first step toward appointing counsel to indigent defendants before, at, or just after an arrestee's initial court appearance The Court found that no "acceptable justification" had been presented for the minority practice of failing to do so.

Homeless Persons

     In a lawsuit filed on behalf of a class of homeless persons whose property had been taken and destroyed in a sweep of public property by the city, its police, or its sanitation division, the trial court certified a class. The plaintiffs claimed that these actions violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court ruled that if the homeless class established that their personal property was destroyed immediately after seizure while property belonging to others was not destroyed in this manner, this would show a violation of the right of equal protection of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. Kincaid v. City of Fresno, No. CV-F-06-1445, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 38532 (E.D. Cal.).

Malicious Prosecution

     When the plaintiff arrestees were indicted by a grand jury, this created a presumption of probable cause. When they failed to create a triable issue of fact to rebut that presumption, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in a malicious prosecution and wrongful arrest lawsuit. Chetrick v. Cohen, No. 2007-03069, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 4914 (A.D. 2nd Dept.).

     Two arrestees were twice prosecuted for murder, unsuccessfully, and later sued, claiming that officers based their arrests and caused their prosecutions by coercing fellow gang members into making false statements implicating them. Upholding a denial of qualified immunity, the appeals court found that, with the allegedly false information set aside, nothing remained in the affidavits to support probable cause for the arrests. Accepting, for purposes of the analysis, the facts asserted by the plaintiffs, the officers intentionally coerced false statements to support the arrests and prosecutions, and no reasonable officer could have believed that there was probable cause for the arrests and prosecutions without the allegedly false statements. Wilkins v. DeReyes, No. 06-2245, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12676 (10th Cir.).

Negligence: Vehicle Related

     A trial judge improperly instructed a jury to consider a state law providing an exemption from liability for vehicles responding to emergency calls in a lawsuit for damages suffered by two persons injured in a traffic accident with a police vehicle. At the time of the accident, the police vehicle was responding to a type of non-emergency radio call that required that he obey all traffic rules, including the posted speed limit. The jury returned a verdict finding that the officer was not negligent based on this erroneous instruction, when all evidence presented demonstrated that the officer was exceeding the speed limit at the time of the accident. The trial court also erroneously excluded the admission of deposition testimony of a civilian witness who supported the argument by the plaintiff that the police vehicle's overhead lights were off at the time of the collision. That deposition was admissible under California law because the witness lived over 150 miles from the courthouse. The judgment below was reversed. Monroy v. City of Los Angeles, No. B196916, 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 948 (2nd Dist.).

     A New York jury found that an officer's reckless conduct and another motorist's negligence were each a substantial factor in causing the motorist's injuries when her vehicle was rear ended by a third motorist after she slammed on her brakes to avoid hitting the officer's vehicle directly in front of her, which had suddenly come to a near stop on the busy highway. The jury apportioned fault, finding the officer and the injured motorist each 50% at fault for her injuries. An intermediate New York appellate court overturned an award to the plaintiff, ruling that the officer's conduct did not proximately cause the plaintiff's injuries. Reversing, the highest court in New York found that a jury could reasonably have found, on the basis of the evidence in the record, that the officer's conduct substantially caused the collision, even though there wasn't any physical contact between the plaintiff's car and the officer's vehicle. Further proceedings were ordered on other issues raised but not previously decided in the appeals court below. Tutrani v. County of Suffolk, No. 100, 2008 N.Y. Lexis 1489.

Police Plaintiff: Assault and Battery

     An off-duty officer tried to help a stranger who claimed he was being robbed, who turned out to be a drug dealer being chased by an on-duty police officer. The off-duty officer, when he realized what the situation was, placed himself in a prone position on the floor in an indication of surrender. The on-duty officer allegedly kicked the off-duty officer repeatedly and stomped on his buttocks and groin until he saw a police badge on the off-duty officer's neck. The injured off-duty officer sued the on-duty officer and the District of Columbia, asserting claims for excessive use of force. A federal appeals court ruled that the trial court acted erroneously in granting qualified immunity to the defendant on-duty officer. The facts, as presented by the plaintiff off-duty officer, showed that the on-duty officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and a reasonable officer would have known that the actions allegedly taken, under the circumstances, were not lawful. The common law negligence claims against the District were properly dismissed, however. The off-duty officer's exclusive remedy on those claims was to seek benefits under the Police and Firefighters Retirement and Disability Act. A trial was ordered on the off-duty officer's civil rights claims. Johnson v. D.C., No. 06-7136, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13289 (D.C. Cir.).

Positional, Restraint, and Compressional Asphyxia

     Although a man suffering from delusions attacked a psychiatric hospital staff member, the defendants knew that restraining him face-down on the floor and putting pressure on a his back posed a substantial risk of asphyxiation. "Despite knowledge of this risk, defendants chose to restrain [the deceased] using these dangerous restraint techniques. Their actions were objectively unreasonable given the fact that [an] eyewitness testified that [the] defendants continued to restrain [him] in this dangerous position ..." He had been brought to the hospital for a mental health assessment by Sheriff's Department personnel who found him wandering the countryside. During the attempt to restrain him, he stopped breathing, never regained consciousness, and died. The appeals court rejected claims by certain defendants for qualified immunity in a federal civil rights lawsuit brought by the decedent's estate. Lanman v. Hinson, #06-2263, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12682, 2008 Fed App. 0212P (6th Cir.).

Parking Tickets and Traffic Offenses

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

     The legality of automated red light enforcement traffic citations and contingency fee contracts with private providers was upheld by an intermediate California appellate court. In re Red Light Photo Enforcement Cases, #D048882, 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 873 (4th Dist.).

Search and Seizure: Home/Business

     Summary judgment was properly denied to the defendant in a lawsuit challenging the warrantless entry onto the plaintiff's property to conduct an inspection for suspected criminal violations of a land use ordinance. Rejecting the argument that the entry was part of an administrative inspection, the court noted that the purpose of the entry was also to attempt to find violations that could result in the imposition of criminal sanctions. Such criminal investigations may not be conducted within the curtilage of a person's home without a warrant, unless there are exigent circumstances. Jacob v. West Bloomfield, No. 07-1534, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14185 (6th Cir.).

     A trial court improperly dismissed a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that a sheriff's investigator and a private citizen entered the plaintiff's barn and took two guns, which subsequently became the basis for revoking the plaintiff's probation. The private citizen was the one who took the guns from the barn and transported them, but the appeals court noted that the plaintiff alleged that the private citizen acted on the investigator's direction and instructions, so that his actions became state action, and his very purpose in being there was to assist the investigator. Further proceedings were therefore ordered. Radunz v. Bon Haden, No. 07-2726, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13164 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).

     Exigent circumstances did not justify a warrantless entry into an arrestee's home as part of an investigation for spousal abuse. At the time of the search, under applicable Ninth Circuit law, the county's policy of allowing such a warrantless entry into a residence with the consent of a co-tenant, such as was obtained from the arrestee's wife at the time, was permissible. However, since the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently held otherwise, [In Georgia v. Randolph, #04-1067, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), where it held that officers' warrantless entry was unconstitutional where one co-tenant consented to entry and the other co-tenant refused], the court reasoned, the policy at issue was actually unconstitutional, and a "deliberate indifference" legal standard should have been applied to the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim concerning the warrantless entry. While the deputies obtained consent for the entry from the wife, the husband/arrestee denied consent. The arrestee was entitled to summary judgment on claims for warrantless entry and unlawful arrest. While the plaintiff was subsequently convicted of spousal abuse, the court rejected the argument that success in the immediate lawsuit would necessarily imply the invalidity of that conviction. Ohlsen v. County of San Joaquin, No. 2:06-cv-2361, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 44566 (E.D. Cal.).

     Hotel guests faced criminal charges on the basis of evidence found by an officer during a warrant-based search of their room. The charges were dropped, however, after the trial court suppressed the evidence, finding that the search was unlawful. The plaintiffs then sued the city and the state drug enforcement officer who conducted the search. A federal appeals court ruled that the suppression of the evidence by the court in the criminal case was not binding in the civil rights case as to whether the officer had probable cause for the search of the hotel room, and further found that, under the totality of the circumstances, there had been probable cause for the search. Summary judgment was therefore upheld for the officer, although on a different basis than had been used in the trial court's reasoning, which had held that the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered any damages because of the search. Cox v. Pate, No. 07-1635, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12747 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Article: Human Performance Improvement for Tactical Teams, by D.J. Hathaway, 77 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin No. 6, pgs.1-7 (June 2008). "Human performance technology can help agencies confront challenging situations and provide exceptional service." [PDF format]

     Article: 911 Homicide Calls and Statement Analysis, by Susan H. Adams and Tracy Harpster, 77 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin No. 6, pgs. 22-31 (June 2008). "911 homicide calls can provide valuable clues to investigators because the caller, in fact, may be the killer." [PDF format]

     Publication: Deaths Following Electro-Muscular Disruption by National Institute of Justice (June 2008). Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption: Interim Report presents interim findings from a NIJ study of deaths of individuals following exposure to electro muscular disruption (EMD) technology from conducted-energy devices (CEDs). CEDs use a high-voltage, low-power electrical charge to induce involuntary muscle contractions that cause temporary incapacitation. This report presents the findings of a medical panel composed of physicians, medical examiners, and other specialists in cardiology, emergency medicine, epidemiology, pathology, and toxicology, based on mortality reviews of CED-related deaths and a review of the current state of medical research relative to the effects of CED. The report includes sections on background, methodology, findings, recommendations for post-event medical care following CED exposure, and considerations in death investigations for deaths that occur following deployment of a CED. It also includes a glossary and an extensive list of selected references.

     Publication: Effective Police Communications Systems Require New "Governance" This National Institute of Justice fact sheet describes how police departments effectively communicate with each other to protect and serve citizens. To do that, police departments create "governance" agreements to jointly own, operate and manage communications systems for the benefit of all participating agencies, which may be in different counties or states. This fact sheet also describes a history of public safety communication and how communication continues to evolve in the present and the future. (June 2008, NCJ 222362)

     Publication: Policing in Arab-American Communities After September 11, by Nicole J. Henderson, Christopher W. Ortiz, Naomi F. Sugie, and Joel Miller. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Reports on a study examining how the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 affected relationships between law enforcement officers and residents in Arab-American neighborhoods. Four significant obstacles to improved relations between police and Arab-American communities were observed: mutual distrust between Arab-American communities and law enforcement, lack of cultural awareness among law enforcement officers, language barriers, and residents' concerns about immigration status. The study reveals some promising practices for addressing these obstacles. (July 2008)

     Report: Evaluation of the New York City Police Department Firearm Training and Firearm-Discharge Review Process, by Bernard D. Rostker, Lawrence M. Hanser, William M. Hix, Carl Jensen, Andrew R. Morral, Greg Ridgeway, and Terry L. Schell. A report prepared by the RAND Corporation at the request of the New York City Police Commissioner. Summary Only. Research Brief. Author Statement. The study states that both recruits and veteran police officers would benefit from firearms training on a more frequent basis and also recommends wider use of Tasers. The report also examines 455 shootings involving officers that were subject to adjudication in 2004, 2005, and 2006 by the N.Y.P.D.'s Firearms Discharge Review Board.

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

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