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

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.

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.