Facebook facebook

Blog

Articles

Police Officers and Tattoos

Can a Passenger Be Detained on a Traffic Stop?

Search Warrant Exceptions

Use of force: Defining 'objectively-reasonable' force

Police Use of Force

Curtilage

Why Legalizing Drugs is a Bad Idea

Good Cops Are Forged in the Fire of Good Defense Attorneys

Hey Officer! Do you hear me?

Traffic Cameras Come To Oklahoma

Law Enforcement and Drivers from Foreign Countries

Excited Delirium & Sudden Death

When do you Mirandize?

Online Sexual Predator Stings

Police Who Overreact

Duty to Take Risks, Not Abuse

Can Sexual Harassment Affect an Officer's Safety?

 

Follow the links above to read about the many cases listed under each catagory. The site contains information on hundreds of cases.
It is important to understand Court Jurisdiction before applying any case law. The case law established by a court's decisions only applies to the citizens under its jurisdiction. To narrow down the focus of the case law listed on this site, I limited the case law for the most part to federal circuit courts and the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court decisions apply to all citizens of the United States and its territories. The Federal Circuit Courts' decisions apply only to the states and territories in their circuits. If you are not sure which Federal Court circuit you are in go to United States Courts.
If you have any cases that you would like to see added to this site, find any errors, or just want to contact me please e-mail me at info@caselaw4cops.net.
Search Case Law 4 Cops

Recently Added Cases

Search Warrant-

US v. Davis, No. 12-12928 (11th Cir. 2014)-Officers were investigating Davis for committing a string of robberies. The police obtained information from Davis' and his co-conspirators' cell phone providers without a warrant that showed they both made and received phone calls in the areas where the robberies occurred at about the times the robberies occurred. Held: Cell site location information is within the subscriber’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The obtaining of that data without a warrant is a Fourth Amendment violation.

Civil-

Downs v. US, 522 F.2d 990 (6th Cir. 1975)-Officers involved in hostage negotiations are better served civilly when force is not immediately necessary, to wait out the hostage takers. The Court stated: Where did exist, from foresight, "a better-suited alternative to protecting the hostages' well-being." That choice was not to intervene forcibly but to continue the " waiting game."

Arrest-

Riley v. California, 13-132 (SCOTUS 2014)-The Court held that police cannot conduct a search incident to arrest of a cellular phone.

1. Digital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee’s escape.

2. Officers can seize the phone and take necessary steps to ensure the information on it is not remote wiped.

3. The fact that an arrestee has diminished privacy interests does not mean that the Fourth Amendment falls out of the picture entirely. Not every search “is acceptable solely because a person is in custody.”

4. A cellular phone is a device with large data storage capacity. It contains information that goes way beyond the limited contents of a person's pockets. It contains months if not years worth of email, photographs, maps, calendars, voice recordings, text messages, diaries, financial information, and etc.

5. The information range of cellular phones also would allow the police to intrude into the privacy of a person beyond the information on the just phone to information stored on remote computer servers.

The vast amount of data that could be collected by police through a person's cellular phone necessitates the need for a search warrant in all but a few unforseen exigent circumstances.

Evidence-

Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383-The police entered Weeks' home without a warrant twice and searched it for papers indicating Weeks was using the mail to commit crimes. The Court held that the warrantless entry and seizure of items from a private residence is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and the evidence shall be excluded in the federal case.

Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963)- The "exclusionary rule" to evidence was extended to also include evidence obtained from a third party as a result of information acquired during the initial unlawful police conduct.