Arrest out of home-
US v. Nora, No. 12-50485 (9th Cir 2014)-Officers saw Nora standing on the sidewalk by his house. As they approached him he had moved to his porch. The officers saw a handgun in his hand. He entered his house and shut the door. The officers called for backup. Over twenty officers surrounded his house and a helicopter watched from above. The officers ordered him out of the house at gunpoint. They arrested him for the misdemeanor offense of carrying a firearm in public. The officers did not know Nora or that he had a felony conviction at the time of arrest. They searched him and found drugs. They questioned him. He admitted to more drugs being in the house. The officers got a warrant and searched his house. They found distribution quantity of cocaine, methamphetamine, and numerous firearms in the house. The Court held that Nora was unlawfully arrested out of his house in violation of Payton v. New York. It was a minor offense and there were no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless arrest from his home. The drugs found on him and his statement were excluded. The officers did not name specifically in the search warrant that they were looking for the pistol they saw Nora with. The search warrant only mentioned any firearm. The Court invalidated the entire search warrant.
US v. Salgado, No. 13-2480 (8th Cir. 2014)-A Trooper stopped to assist Salgado whose vehicle was broken down on the side of the road. The Trooper developed reasonable suspicion to detain Salgado and call for a drug dog. The Trooper tried to find a close K-9, but could not. He called out another Trooper with a K-9, but he was 45 miles away. It took an hour for him to arrive. The court said the wait was reasonable under the circumstances.
US v. Williams, 13-2390 (8th Cir 2014)-Williams arrived home during the execution of a search warrant for child porn. A federal agent told him he was not under arrest and asked if he would answer some questions. Williams was allowed to walk to the restroom and get a drink of water. He was not restrained. When agents were done with the search warrant, Williams was not immediately arrested. The lower court said that Williams should have been read the Miranda warning. The 8th Circuit Court reversed and held that Williams was not in custody for Miranda purposes.
US v. Arnott, 13-1881 (1Cir. 2014)-The frisk was lawful because Arnott was stopped for possibly being involved in a recent drug deal. He was highly nervous and the connection between guns and drugs is legendary.
US v. Hayden, 13-2291 (8th Cir. 2014)-When a police officer identifies himself by saying, "Police" to someone on the street, it is not a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
The officers received notice that there has been a rash of robberies and burglaries in a high crime area. Officers saw Hayden and his partner casing a house at night in the area. They identified themselves by saying, "Police". Hayden turned away and put his hand in his pocket. The officer ordered him to remove his hand. He did so. The officer frisked him and found a gun. Hayden was arrested. It was a lawful search and arrest.
US v. Burgess, No. 13-3571 (7th Cir. 2014)-Several 911 calls of shots fired in an area within a few minutes, and all the callers described the general area and nature of the crime. Callers also described the suspect's vehicle. All rose to the level of reasonable suspicion for officers to stop Burgess.
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.
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."