In this Case Alert, we discuss an Arizona lawsuit that has resulted in an appeals court ruling that clarifies whether a police officer’s use of firearm and handcuffs in the detention of a person suspected of preparing to commit a dangerous felony is unconstitutional.
Court affirms the dismissal of a civil lawsuit filed after a young man was killed in Seattle during sometimes-violent protests that city officials allowed to continue. Ruling says a state-created danger must be specific to the plaintiff, not just general to the wider public.
A 2023 Second District Court of Appeals ruling allows online research to establish the value of stolen goods, setting a California precedent that helps determine whether theft cases should be considered misdemeanors or if they meet the financial threshold for a felony. Please click below to read the full alert.
Here we discuss temporary domestic violence restraining orders and a law enforcement officer’s legal obligations during a potential arrest when the subject hasn’t been served or if they don’t even know the order exists.
“Present Ability” to Commit Serious Bodily Injury is an Essential Element in the Crime of Assault - Despite Physical Limitations, the Defendant Had the “Present Ability” to Commit Assault
It remains a crime for convicted felons or own or possess firearms or ammunition, despite the “right to bear Arms” protections of the Second Amendment.
Conviction Reversed due to Insufficient Evidence the Defendant Saw or Heard Emergency Lights and Siren for the Purposes of Evading an Officer Causing Serious Bodily Injury (2800.3 V.C.)
Warning a resisting suspect that deadly force is about to be used is an element of the ultimate determination of the reasonableness of an officer’s use of deadly force.
Geofence warrants are lawful so long as in compliance with these rules, and while limiting an investigator’s unfettered discretion in deciding whose electronic device to search.
An illegal detention may poison an otherwise lawful search under the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.” Intervening circumstances, however, may attenuate that taint, making the subsequent search lawful. Whether or not the taint of an unlawful detention is attenuated depends upon the circumstances. (Implicit biases may
