Recently Added Cases

Stop & Frisk-

US v. Aquino, 11-1372 (8th Cir. 2012)-Aquino was contacted on a bus by police. The officer asked him for consent to search his person. Aquino refused. The officer asked him to pull his clothes tight to his body. Aquino obeyed the officer. The officer saw a bulge under Aquino's pants by the calf. The officer immediately placed Aquino in handcuffs and pulled his lower pant leg up to reveal a bag of methamphetamine taped to the leg. The Court held that seeing the bulge in and of itself does not establish probable cause to conduct a search beyond a pat search of the outer clothing, which the officer did not do. The evidence was excluded.

Body-

Florence v. Burlington, ___ US No. 10–945 (2012)-The court held that a prisoner in jail on a minor offense can be strip searched if the person is going into general population.

Miranda-

Howes v. Fields, _____ US 10-680 (2012)-Fields was a prisoner who was questioned by deputies about possible criminal activity he may have been involved in prior to imprisonment. He was not read his Miranda rights. Fields was not restrained. He was told he could return to his cell whenever he wanted. The door to the room he was questioned in was sometimes opened and sometimes closed during the questioning. The Supreme Court held that, "The Sixth Circuit’s categorical rule—that imprisonment, questioning in private, and questioning about events in the outside world create a custodial situation for Miranda purposes is simply wrong." The Court determined that there are at least the following 3 grounds to support this conclusion: 1) The questioning of a person already in prison lacks the shock from being arrested. 2) A prisoner knows that speaking to law enforcement is not going to lead to his prompt release. 3) A prisoner knows that the questioners can't reduce his prison time. Therefore, being in prison by itself is not enough to constitute Miranda custody.

Evidence-

US v. Brito, 136 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 1998)-"Constructive possession exists if the defendant knowingly has dominion and control, or has the power to exercise dominion and control, over the drugs, or if the defendant has knowing dominion and control over a vehicle in which drugs are concealed."

K-9-

United States v Guzman, 75 F. 3d 1090 (6th Cir. 1996)-If a dog shows only interest, but does not alert, this does not constitute probable cause. The handler's awareness in the interest can be used in conjunction with the totality of other facts to establish probable cause.

United States v Kennedy, 131 F. 3d 1371 (10th Cir. 1997)-A warrant is not rendered invalid because the dog handler did not keep accurate training records or train the dog on a regular basis. The dog was certified in detecting drugs and had a reliability rate of 70-80%. This was sufficient to establish probable cause.

United States v Owens, 167 F. 3d 739 (1st Cir. 1999)-Even if a dog failed to pass two previous certifications, it was certified at the time of the sniff and the handler and training supervisor testified to its reliability. The dog was sufficiently reliable to support a finding of probable cause.

US v. Outlaw, 319 F. 3d 701 (5th Cir. 2003)-"It is undisputed that this drug-detecting team successfully completed all standard training procedures for border patrol drug-detecting teams and that this canine was certified to detect a variety of narcotics, including marijuana and its derivatives, cocaine and its derivatives, heroin and its derivatives and methamphetamine. That the suitcase the canine alerted to later turned out to contain PCP, a drug the dog was not trained to detect, simply does not vitiate the agent's reasonable suspicion under these facts."

United States v Ramirez, 342 F. 3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2003)-An investigation into the contents of a package does not have to cease just because a K-9 failed to alert on it.

United States v Sanchez, 417 F. 3d 971 (8th Cir. 2005)-The police were justified in delaying a traffic stop for 45 minutes to run computer checks after it was suspected the passenger gave a fake ID. The officers acted diligently to minimize the detention period by employing the least intrusive means of detention and investigation. A drug dog alerted to the trunk and a large quantity of marijuana was found.

US v. Jackson, 390 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2004)-Narcotics officers boarded a bus after it stopped at the terminal. The officers obtained a consent to search from the driver. They then informed the passengers that a police dog will be searching the bus. The passengers were informed that they could either remain on the bus or depart. All the passengers exited the bus. The dog hit on a seat indicating that a passenger was carrying the drugs. They saw Jackson as he exited the bus. He acted very suspicious. They located Jackson after the dog sniffed the bus for drugs and they started a consentual encounter with him. They developed reasonable suspicion and pat searched Jackson. They found a belt around his waist full of cocaine. The court held: "As we have said, at its inception, [officer] Dunn's encounter with Jackson was justified because it was consensual. Indeed, even absent Jackson's consent, the fact that Dunn was aware of the dog alert and that one of the passengers was likely carrying drugs on his person, coupled with Jackson's nervous and erratic behavior (including what Dunn regarded as his unusually erect posture), would be sufficient to premise a reasonable and particularized suspicion that Jackson was the drug courier."

Surveillance-

US v. Jones, ____ US 10–1259 (2012)-Held: "The Government’s attachment of the GPS device to the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment." This case differs from Knotts in that the government intruded onto Jone's vehicle and hid a GPS tracking device. This device enabled the government to track in detail every movement of the vehicle, even into private areas.

Use of Force-

Isom v. Town of Warren Rhode Island, 360 F.3d (1st Cir. 2004)-Isom was emotionally disturbed. He was armed with an ax and entered a liquor store where he took hostages. An officer pepper sprayed him. He turned, raised the ax, and charged the officers. He was shot and killed. The family sued claiming the pepper spraying of Isom inflamed the situation leading to the use of deadly force. The Court held that the actions of the officers was reasonable.

Kesinger Estate of Kesinger v. Herrington, 381 F. 3d 1243-Kesinger was a mentally ill person standing in traffic wanting to commit suicide. A plain-clothed detective named Herrington saw him and stopped his vehicle. He motioned Kesinger to get out of the traffic. kesinger charged him down. Kesinger told him that both of them were going to die. Herrington retreated to his vehicle. Kesinger attacked him. He heard two loud banging sounds and his car windows shattered. He thought the he was being shot at. Herrington returned fire and killed Kesinger. Kesinger broke the windows with his fists. He did not have a gun. The Court held that he shooting was justified.