Brief detention of witnesses to a shooting incident was not contrary to clearly established law, so QI granted officers. There is no fixed time limit in any of the cases. Walker v. City of Orem, 451 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. June 27, 2006).

United States v. Irving, 432 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. Dec. 23, 2005), holding that a border search at DFW revealing computer disks of child porn was valid was reheard on other grounds on the government’s petition for rehearing, and a subsituted opinion is entered. The search issue is unaltered. United States v. Irving, 452 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. June 23, 2006) (this case was first argued in Dec. 2004).

“We consider here whether officers who reasonably believe that they have valid grounds for pulling over a vehicle, but then realize once the vehicle is stopped that they acted on the basis of a mistake of fact, violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the occupants of the vehicle simply by walking up to the vehicle. We conclude that in such circumstances the officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the occupants because it is reasonable for the officers to approach the vehicle to explain the situation and to inform the occupants that they are free to go. If, immediately upon coming near the vehicle, the officers learn new facts that give rise to a reasonable belief that the occupants are engaged in criminal activity, the officers may continue the detention to investigate further.” United States v. Jenkins, 452 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. June 23, 2006, as amended August 16, 2006).

Plaintiff stated a claim for false arrest and unreasonable force during his arrest for allegedly trespassing in a park at night. When officers approached, he fled thinking he was being robbed, and, during his arrest, he suffered a broken leg. When plaintiff said he thought his leg was broken, an officer said, after handcuffing him, “I don’t give a fuck about your broken leg,” and made him crawl to a park bench. The court concluded that a jury could also find that to be “force” that was excessive. Phelps v. City of New York, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42926 (S.D. N.Y. June 27, 2006).

In swearing match over consent, court sides with the defendant because of inconsistencies in the officer’s testimony finding that the government failed in its burden of proof on consent. As a part of the totality, the court finds that it would be irrational for the defendant to agree to a search when contraband was in the car [but we’ve all seen cases where that has happened; usually because they figure they have no choice]. United States v. Laughton, 437 F. Supp. 2d 665 (E.D. Mich. June 26, 2006).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.