The Investigator Network Podcast

Patrol Case Law: Chinaryan v. City of Los Angeles (2024)

In "Chinaryan v. City of Los Angeles," the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that Los Angeles Police Department officers violated the Fourth Amendment and California state law by conducting a high-risk felony stop on Hasmik Chinaryan's vehicle without probable cause. The court found that the officers used excessive force by drawing their weapons and ordering Chinaryan and her passengers out of the car at gunpoint, despite the vehicle not being stolen.

Patrol Case Law: Miranda V. Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona, which established the now-famous Miranda Rights. The decision centered around the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and its application to police custodial interrogation. The Court recognized the inherent coercion present in such settings, leading to the requirement of warnings about the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the consequences of waiving these rights. The decision aimed to protect individual liberties while acknowledging the need for effective law enforcement.

Patrol Case Law: US V. Ramirez (2024)

 It deals with the case of Victor Manuel Ramirez, who was pulled over during a traffic stop and found to be in possession of a firearm. The case centered around whether it is permissible for a police officer to ask a person if they are on parole during a traffic stop. Click Here for court documents.

Patrol Case Law: Arizona V. Gant

The case of Arizona v. Gant deals with the legality of vehicle searches conducted as part of an arrest.

Patrol Case Law: Terry V. Ohio

In "Terry v. Ohio," the Supreme Court ruled that police officers can stop and frisk individuals on the street if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity, even without a warrant. The decision balanced the need for police to ensure safety and prevent crime against the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Patrol Case Law: Graham V. Connor

Graham v. Connor, determined the standard for evaluating claims of excessive force by law enforcement officers during arrests, investigatory stops, or other seizures of citizens. The Court rejected the previous "substantive due process" standard in favor of a more specific "objective reasonableness" standard grounded in the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures. This means that courts must determine whether the force used was objectively reasonable given the circumstances, not based on the officer's subjective intent or motivation. The decision clarifies the legal framework for evaluating such claims, emphasizing the importance of assessing the severity of the crime, the threat posed by the suspect, and the level of resistance offered. The decision also underscores the need to consider the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, recognizing the challenging and dynamic nature of law enforcement situations.

Patrol Case Law: Tennessee V. Garner

In this case, the Court ruled that a Tennessee statute allowing police officers to use deadly force to prevent the escape of any suspected felon was unconstitutional. The Court's decision focused on the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures, arguing that the use of deadly force against a fleeing, unarmed suspect who poses no significant threat to the officer or others is excessive and unreasonable. The Court found that the common-law rule permitting deadly force against fleeing felons was no longer justified in modern society and that the practice of many police departments in restricting the use of deadly force supports the Court's conclusion.

ICAC Case Law: US V. Battershell (2006)

In United States v. Battershell, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the denial of Battershell's motion to suppress evidence found on his computer. The court found that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, as the affidavit described images of child pornography seen by the responding officer.

ICAC Case Law: US V. Syphers (2005)

In United States v. Syphers (2005), the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a delay in executing a search warrant for a computer does not invalidate the warrant or render evidence inadmissible, as long as there is no lapse in probable cause or showing of prejudice to the defendant from the delay. The court upheld the denial of Syphers' motion to suppress evidence of child pornography recovered from his computer.

ICAC Case Law: US V. Perkins (2017)

In United States v. Perkins (2017), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained from Perkins' home computers. Perkins had pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography, but he appealed on the grounds that the search warrant was based on an affidavit that omitted material information, which could have misled the magistrate judge. The Ninth Circuit agreed, finding that the omission was reckless and required the reversal of Perkins' conviction