LA2: Arrest allegedly in violation of 4A leads to officer’s indictment, which is quashed because of justification

The officer here was charged with malfeasance in office for violating the Fourth Amendment by handcuffing a detainee for whom he was told there was an arrest warrant after he revoked consent to search: “I have someone you can talk to, otherwise you can get the f**k off my property.” He moved to quash the indictment which the trial court denied. Appropriately applying de facto qualified immunity in criminal case: “In the instant case, as in State v. Hessler, supra, Dep. Chapman’s ‘duty to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the laws and Constitution of Louisiana,’ while written, do not create an affirmative duty specific enough to place any public officer on notice that handcuffing a person for officer safety during a consensual search for a subject with an outstanding arrest warrant based on a reliable tip or determining that consent to search has not been revoked in the midst of such a search in a situation such as that faced by Dep. Chapman, who was given an ambiguous, belligerent message subject to multiple interpretations after consent had been readily given, only one interpretation of which was the revocation of consent, will result of a charge of malfeasance in office.” State v. Chapman, 2023 La. App. LEXIS 2090 (La. App. 2 Cir. Dec. 6, 2023).

Defendant was invited to sit in the patrol car during writing a ticket for not having an interlock device nor the paperwork for it; his doing so was by consent. State v. Hampton, 2023 Iowa App. LEXIS 949 (Dec. 6, 2023).*

Defendant was tried and convicted of disarming a police officer who ultimately Tazed him. “[T]he State has no affirmative duty to show compliance with the Fourth Amendment as an element of this offense.” State v. Wilson, 2023 Iowa App. LEXIS 933 (Dec. 6, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.