Not TOO illegal detention led to defendant having wants and warrants run which led to an arrest warrant being found and a search incident led to drugs; the seizure was not so illegal that the detention should be suppressed

An officer was talking to two people in a breezeway, and defendant happened by. The officer asked him for his identification without justification and ran wants and warrants on him, finding a warrant. A search incident followed and drugs were found. The stop was illegal but not flagrantly illegal. Thus, the existence of the arrest warrant was an independent intervening circumstance that dissipates the taint of the initial illegal stop vis-a-vis the evidence discovered as a consequence of a search incident to the execution of the arrest warrant. Birch v. Commonwealth, 203 S.W.3d 156 (Ky. App. March 17, 2006). Comment: So, police can just stop people to check their IDs to see if there are warrants on them as long as they don’t keep them too long? What is wrong with this picture?

Search of house for key to lock door after defendant was arrested for a DV complaint exceeded defendant’s consent to search. He had a key on his person and he told the officers where to look for a key inside, but they searched drawers contrary to the consent and found guns, which he was charged with. They never bothered to take the key from his person to lock the door. The search was illegal. Commonwealth v. Thomas, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 738, 856 N.E.2d 892 (November 15, 2006).

Excessively tight handcuffing that injured plaintiff stated a claim against the officer that did it and the officers plaintiff complained to who did nothing. Pheneger v. City of Lima, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82902 (N.D. Ohio November 14, 2006):

Plaintiff alleges the officers used excessive force when putting on the handcuffs. Plaintiff further alleges the officers failed to do anything after plaintiff told them that the handcuffs were causing severe pain and swelling to her wrists. Plaintiff states that on removal of the handcuffs her hands were swollen to twice their normal size and red marks and bruising were evident where the handcuffs had been. Plaintiff alleges that she later required surgery and other medical care as a result of the injuries inflicted on her by the excessively tight handcuffs.

Plaintiff asserts a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against the officer who applied the handcuffs and the other officers present. With regard to her claims against those other officers, the Sixth Circuit has held that a police officer who fails to act to prevent the use of excessive force may be held liable when “(1) the officer observed or had reason to know that excessive force would be or was being used, and (2) the officer had both the opportunity and the means to prevent the harm from occurring.” Smoak v. Hall, 460 F.3d 768, 784 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Turner v. Scott, 119 F.3d 425, 429 (6th Cir. 1977)); see also Barton v. Norrod, 106 F.3d 1289, 1299 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding that an officer present where other officers are violating a person’s civil rights may have a duty to intervene).

Georgia v. Randolph applies to objecting resident and not one who consents. Defendant consented. United States v. Wilson, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82737 (D. Neb. November 8, 2006).*

General motion to suppress that did not address the sworn affidavit already in the case file was insufficient to even warrant granting a hearing in N.Y. under CPL 710.60(1). People v Long, 2006 NY Slip Op 8198, 2006 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13447 (2d Dept. November 14, 2006).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.