Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Do No Harm, Do Know Harm |
I'm finding the most interesting part of my new gig is doing the routine internal investigations related to uses of force, exigent entries, etc. I spent 4 hours typing about less than a second of video one night last week. Interesting and tedious. I'm trying to find a case that was decided in the last 2 years. I think it was SCOTUS, or maybe 4th Circuit. Hell, it could have been any of the circuits. I saved it somewhere but can't find it. It was a seizure case, where the question was whether the officer had the legal justification to turn a situation into an arrest, even though it wasn't his intention. The defense argued no, and the officer never said he thought he had PC, but the court decided that yes, there was probable cause for an arrest--even though the officer didn't realize it--and the resulting "arrest" was justified. Can anyone help me find this one? Knowing what one is talking about is widely admired but not strictly required here. Although sometimes distracting, there is often a certain entertainment value to this easy standard. -JALLEN "All I need is a WAR ON DRUGS reference and I got myself a police thread BINGO." -jljones | ||
|
Truth Seeker |
Is this the one where I think the guy was leaving a known drug area, was pulled over, and when they ran him they found he had a warrant for his arrest? They had no PC for the stop, but then searched him incident to the arrest for the warrant and found drugs on him so he was charged with the drugs. The issue was over the drugs being found on a traffic stop with no PC, but the court ruled the drugs could be charged because it was found during the search incident to the warrant arrest. Is it this one? If so, we were just talking about it yesterday and I can get the case name today. The one I am thinking of is Utah v. Strieff. NRA Benefactor Life Member | |||
|
| Do No Harm, Do Know Harm |
I'll look at it later on today--about to head to the kids' school for a meeting after working all night. But I think it was even murkier than that. Rather than a warrant it was a crime in the officer's presence that the officer didn't realize or articulate was a crime. Having 19 officers working under you with an average length of solo experience being measured in the months makes for some very interesting paperwork to try to clean up their messes  They mean well!Knowing what one is talking about is widely admired but not strictly required here. Although sometimes distracting, there is often a certain entertainment value to this easy standard. -JALLEN "All I need is a WAR ON DRUGS reference and I got myself a police thread BINGO." -jljones | |||
|
| Member |
Chongo, I did a very brief search based on the information you provided. I would suggest you read Devenpeck v. Alford to see if it answers your question. If you want to get into more detail, my email is in my profile. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-710 | |||
|
Res ipsa loquitur |
It is hard to say from your description but Navarette v. California is from 2014 and may be the case you were thinking about. https://supreme.justia.com/cas...eral/us/572/12-9490/ __________________________ | |||
|
| Quirky Lurker |
I am away from my computer and dont have access to Westlaw. I dont know the name of the case you are specifically looking for, but it is well settled thatthe PC analysis is an objective one, and the subjective, even if mistaken, opinion of the officer is of no consequence. It is the same analysis used in LEO use of force cases. An officer’s mistaken belief that he has PC when he does not doesn’t validate an unlawful arrest and his mistaken belief that he does not have PC doesn’t invalidate a lawful arrest Good luck! | |||
|
Member |
Is this billable hours?? ------------------ Eddie Our Founding Fathers were men who understood that the right thing is not necessarily the written thing. -kkina | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024