An Officer’s view on Racial Profiling

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


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


Maresca v. Fuentes, No. 14-2163 (10th Cir 2015)-Fuentes, a new officer, ran the Marescas' vehicle tag on her in-car computer. She entered the tag number incorrectly. The tag she ran checked to a stolen vehicle that had a different description than the Marescas' vehicle. She did not check the vehicle description before conducting a high-risk felony traffic stop on the vehicle with other officers arriving to assist. The Marescas sued for false arrest and excessive force. Fuentes claimed that they were not arrested, but placed in investigative detention.

The Court held: Ordering people out of a vehicle at gunpoint and proning them on the ground, then handcuffing and securing them in a patrol car without any factual reason to believe they were armed and dangerous is beyond a Terry type investigative detention and is an arrest. Further, Fuentes could not rely on an unreasonable mistake of facts to develop probable cause. She had exculpatory evidence on her computer in the vehicle description which she failed to read. The arrest was unlawful and Fuentes was not entitled to qualified immunity.

Moore v. Pederson, No. 14-14201 (11th Cir 2015)-Under the Fourth Amendment, the home is a sacrosanct place that enjoys special protection from government intrusion. The government may not enter a person’s home to effect an arrest without a warrant, or probable cause plus either consent or exigent circumstances.

Search Warrants-

City of Los Angeles v. Patel, No. 13-1175 (SCOTUS, 2015)-The Court held that police, absent consent, must have a warrant or administrative subpoena to see a hotel's guest records.

K-9 Case

Rodriguez v. US, 13-9972 (SCOTUS 2015)-The Court ruled that a traffic stop, absent reasonable suspicion or consent, cannot be extended even for a few minutes after the conclusion of a traffic stop in order to conduct a K-9 sniff of the vehicle. In this case the driver was stopped and issued a warning. He was then asked for permission to remain so the officer can conduct a K-9 sniff. The driver refused. The officer detained the driver anyway until another officer arrived. The officer conducted the K-9 sniff approx. 8 minutes after the stop was concluded. Drugs were found in the vehicle after the K-9 alerted. The driver was arrested. The Court held that the detention beyond the length of the traffic stop was an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Constitution.

Use of Force-

Aldaba v. Pickens, 13-7034 (10th Cir. 2015)-The justification for use of force on a mentally ill person with serious and deteriorating medical condition who needs treatment differs from a criminal who is a threat to the community. In this case the officers tased a patient at a hospital multiple times and forced him to the ground and handcuffed him. The patient died. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.


Cooper v. Bergeron, No. 13-1471 (1st Cir. 2015)-The court held that a victim identification of the suspect by a single voice recording was sufficient for admission at court barring any improper prior suggestions by police.


US v. Barber, No. 13-14935 (11 Cir. 2015)-Barber was a front passenger in a vehicle. He had a bag at his feet that was his. An officer stopped the vehicle and arrested the driver. He obtained consent to search of the vehicle from the driver. The officer searched the bag belonging to Barber. The officer did not get consent to search from Barber, nor did Barber object to the search. A gun was found with other personal items identifying Barber as the owner of the bag. Barber was a felon and was arrested for the possession. Held: The consent to search of the bag was valid for the following reasons:

1. The driver had the apparent authority to give consent to search of the bag.

2. The bag was in easy reach of the driver.

3. Barber did not object to the search.

Barber's arrest was lawful.

Heien v. North Carolina, No. 13-604 (SCOTUS, 2014)-The officer stopped a vehicle for a brake light out. He became suspicious and asked for consent to search. He found trafficking weight of cocaine. Heien was arrested and convicted. Heien appealed to the State Supreme Court. The Court tossed the conviction because state law only requires one functioning brake light which Heien's vehicle had. The US Supreme Court held that as long as the mistake in law was reasonable, then the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the stop. The conviction stands.