Highlights of This Issue

United States Supreme Court Action

Pending United States Supreme Court Cases; Note From the Editor

As we went to press with this issue, there were dozens of cases on the Court's docket awaiting oral argument and decisions. These decisions will result in many changes in criminal law and procedure (arrest, search and seizure, interrogation, etc.), civil liability and personnel law. Decisions will be published in LELR as they come down, as well as by Special Bulletins directly to subscribers, and full text will be available on our internet link. Other cases are on the Court's docket awaiting action.

A few of the pending cases are listed here:

Chavez v. Martinez, No. 01-1444--law enforcement civil liability for Miranda violations.

Cook County, Ill. v. United States ex rel. Chandler, No. 01-1572--punitive damages against municipalities.

Connecticut Dep't of Public Safety v. Doe, No. 01-1231--registration of sex offenders ("Megan's Law" statute).

Jinks v. Richland County, S.C., No. 02-0258-- wrongful death liability for deaths occurring in local detention facilities.

Lockyer v. Andrade; Ewing v. California, No. 01-1127; 01-0978--constitutionality of "three strikes" laws.

Plus many other cases dealing with search and seizure, arbitration, disability law, discrimination law, mandatory detention, double jeopardy, qualified and sovereign immunity, labor issues, gun control, interrogation of suspects, etc.

Canine Alert: Automobiles; Reasonable Suspicion; Equipment Violation

State v. Wiegand, 645 N.W.2d 125 (Minn. 2002).

State. It has been held that in order to lawfully conduct a narcotics-detection dog sniff around the exterior of a motor vehicle stopped for a routine equipment violation, a police officer must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of drug-related criminal activity. The court in this case found no reasonable suspicion where the officer testified that defendant, who was driving a vehicle, acted suspiciously, was evasive and nervous, and had glassy eyes, but the officer indicated no reason to suspect driver-related activity.

". . . The officers simply noted that Wiegan was acting suspiciously, but indicated no reason to suspect drug-related activity. . . ."

Exigent Circumstances: Anonymous 911 Call Concerning Gunfire in a Home; Plain View Seizure of Evidence

United States v. Holloway, 290 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2002).

Federal. Police officers acted properly when they conducted a warrantless search of defendant's home in response to an emergency situation reported by an anonymous 911 caller. Under the circumstances known to them at the time, the officers reasonably believed an emergency situation justify a warrantless search of defendant's home for victims of gunfire.

The court said that while validly on the property in response to an emergency situation reported by the anonymous 911 caller, the officers were authorized to seize a shotgun found in plain view.

"The fact that no victims are found, or that the information ultimately proves to be false or inaccurate, does not render the police action any less lawful. . . . As long as the officers reasonably believe an emergency situation necessitates their warrantless search, whether through information provided by a 911 call or otherwise, such actions must be upheld as constitutional. . . ."

Miranda: Interrogation; Police Statement That Defendant Could Be in "Big Trouble"

Excessive Force: Police Stand-Off; Exigent Circumstances

Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 295 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2002).

Federal. Police officers responded to a call that a paranoid schizophrenic man had been menacing with a gun those attending his bedridden wife. The police attempted to enter the house when he responded strangely to their knock. He shot one of the officers, and, after a two-day armed standoff, during which two more officers were shot, killed himself and his son after an armored vehicle rammed into the house.

The court said the officers were not liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry, as "the created-exigency cases have typically required some showing of deliberate conduct on the part of the police evincing an effort intentionally to evade the warrant requirement. . . . the use of non-deadly force such as tear gas and psychological tactics, while perhaps ill-considered, was not excessive. . . ." As to the plaintiff's substantive due process claim, the court said the police chief "drew the inference that aggressive tactics might provoke [the man] to respond in a dangerous manner toward his wife and child[,]" and the police chief "also knew that further delay and inaction . . . posed substantial risks."

Affirmative Action: Police Promotions; African-Americans, Females and Hispanics

Reynolds v. City of Chicago, 296 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2002).

Federal. A city's promotion of black police officers to the rank of lieutenant or captain over white police officers with higher test scores, pursuant to an affirmative action plan, did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The court found evidence that racial discrimination had depressed the hiring of black officers in the past. It said that remedying past discrimination justified the affirmative action plan, and noted that a mere handful of black officers were actually promoted "out of rank," and that promotion of white officers was merely delayed.

The court held to the same effect for affirmative action for females and Hispanics.