The common law rule of a misdemeanor offense needing to be in the presence of the officer to be a basis for an arrest is not considered part of the Fourth Amendment. “And our court has held that the offense need not even have been committed in the officer’s presence to satisfy the Fourth Amendment—probable cause alone is sufficient to seize a person suspected of a misdemeanor. Graves v. Mahoning Cnty., 821 F.3d 772, 778 (6th Cir. 2016); United States v. Smith, 73 F.3d 1414, 1416 (6th Cir. 1996) (The in-the-presence requirement ‘is not mandated by the Fourth Amendment; it is merely a rule of the common law.’).” [Well, SCOTUS has held a few times that the common law in 1791 is part of the Fourth Amendment.] United States v. Jones, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34305 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 2022). This is ripe for SCOTUS review.
Officers raided a medical clinic and the doctor was finally interviewed by officers. The initial entry was with guns drawn and raid jackets, but the guns were put away and the jackets removed. It was not custodial for the interview. United States v. Misra, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223195 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 12, 2022);* United States v. Grenkoski, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223197 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 12, 2022).*
There was probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest based on the smell of marijuana which included her showing the officer it was almost gone. Griesmar v. City of Stow, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34151 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2022).*