ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Supreme Court Legal Update (2022) - Every Officer Must Know
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 มิ.ย. 2022
- Three recent supreme court cases, every police officer must know!
Torres v. Madrid: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...
Caniglia v. Strom: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...
Lange v. California: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...
I provide legal training for law enforcement. Find out more about my LEO courses at: policelegaltraining.com
Podcast available where you listen to podcasts or listen to The Podcast Here: www.spreaker.com/show/tactica...
Erik Scramlin is a former Chief Deputy District Attorney and currently serves as the Senior Attorney Instructor at Tactical Legal Solutions, LLC. Courses and contact information available at policelegaltraining.com
Get a copy of the Tactical Attorney Objections and Foundations Cheat Sheet here: www.subscribepage.com/tactica...
DISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice. This content and all of Tactical Attorney's content is for informational purposes only. You should contact your attorney to obtain legal advice with respect to any particular issue. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship of any kind.
![รอจะบอกคำนั้น - KARN The Parkinson x DAOU PITTAYA [LIVE SESSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wACfLFATe2Y/mqdefault.jpg)
The scariest words a person could ever hear: “I’m with the government and I’m here to help…”.
Lol, I would tend to agree.
Wasn't that a Ronald Reagan quote?
@@leftovertech It was...
Under Torres, an attempted siezure is a siezure. The court's position, as I read it, is that a siezure doesn't vanish because it is unsuccessful.
very informative, not a leo but i was looking up pennsylvania vs mimms and got recommended to your channel 👍
Thank you. I'm glad you take some value from the channel.
Dont forget to check out Maryland v Wilson too! It goes hand and hand with penn mimms
Why aren't we training the United States law enforcement how to properly enforce the law
I certainly tried my best when I was an instructor for federal law enforcement.
@tacticalattorney it's all about control and monetary
Value. Getting your bonds from your all caps name
( cesti Que vie trust account attached to your social security number held in the Department of Treasury).
Also , for their retirement fund.
Great video thank you!
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.
I truly believe that when a suspected DUI driver flees and runs into his residence, creates a destruction of evidence exigent circumstances because once you lose sight of the driver, he can later say he drank how ever many alcoholic beverages once he entered the residence
See Welsh v. Wisconsin.
Lange v. California, 594 U.S. ___ (2021) Pursuit of a misdemeanant does not trigger a categorical rule allowing a warrantless home entry.
Good stuff!
Glad you talked about exigent entries. In South Carolina we have a 2004 SC Court of Appeals case 'State v Abdullah' where the court noted 'Whrn officers believe a person inside is in need of immediate aid they can make warrantless entries and searches.' Searches are limited in scope to looking for people not things.
That case law definitely tracks with federal case law.
@@tacticalattorney yes our court cited federal law many times in their opinion.
Too bad most officers can't be bothered to research the laws that they enforce.
The legislation and courts need to tighten the reigns on what officers are allowed to do since we all know the officers and their departments are not going to self police themselves properly. We pay out to much of the citizens tax dollars for bad officers lawsuits and bogus DA investigations for inappropriate charges and actions.
Couldn’t be more accurate. I’ve seen firsthand that they protect their own. And qualified immunity shouldn’t protect dishonest public servants
Appreciate the info brother. What song is this in your intro? It's a banger
Question regarding exigent circumstances: In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon Bombing, as law enforcement pursued the suspects, they patrolled in neighborhoods where they believed the suspects might be located.
During that time, SWAT teams went door-to-door, forcing homeowners out of their homes at gunpoint and subsequently seached every home. Homeowners were forced to leave the area and weren't allowed back into their homes until several hours later.
It was argued the officers were in "hot pursuit" and avoided a 4th amendment violation due to exigent circumstances.
How can this be the case since the officers were randomly entering homes? They had no idea whether or not the suspects were inside any of the homes.
To me, hot pursuit means you're right on the heels of a fleeing suspect and you see them enter a home or you're at their home and you spot them through a window.
And how are they allowed to force people out of their homes and not allow them back in?
"To me, hot pursuit means you're right on the heels of a fleeing suspect and you see them enter a home or you're at their home and you spot them through a window." that's exactly what the exigent and hot pursuit prong means. I think theirs some mis information with that, the only thing I can think of is they asked for consent to search because theirs no way to force it
If he ran several lights / stop signs and refused to stop that’s a pursuit . That a felony . Hot pursuit applied . Guess it depends where your at
Thanks for the comment. In Lange, the offenses only amounted to a misdemeanor. Hot pursuit case law has largely involved felonies. The Court in Lange made clear that they were not going to create a new exception when it comes to misdemeanors. You are correct, every officer should be very familiar with their jurisdictions laws. If the offense committed is a felony, the analysis changes.
Good to see the Supreme Court finally putting a halt to giving police unlimited power.
Awesome analysis, gonna be a fallout training session for sure. thank you
Is it ok for an officer to break through a door without a warrant if someone said the suspect broke their mobile tablet?
Only if the officer has a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances.
Love the Sic Transit Gloria intro 💪
Please discuss case law relative to handcuff for officer safety. It seems to me this is abused. Thanks
Thanks for the comment. I have touched on this just a bit in the Terry frisk episode. I will definitely see if I can work into a future episode.
@@tacticalattorney thanks. I’ll look for the Terry Frisk.
It’s been my experience, since Supreme Court allowed handcuffing for safety, we overuse it. E.g. 4 good sized officers, frail female - “I’m handcuffing you for my safety and yours…”
End "punishment disguised as process".
Very informative would you do too 10-15 case laws directly related to police work? Pls
Check back, a lot more content on case law coming. Thanks!
trying to teach cops the law is like trying to turn lead into gold
lol, sometimes it feels that way but fortunately, most officers are receptive to legal training and my courses are a little different than most so I typically see them leave with a lot of high quality takeaways.
I'm so glad I found your channel, how police can cheat , lie and violate my rights and use case law to get away with it...
WHY can't you just teach these people how to legally do their jobs and treat people humanely????
Buddy, you got to get rid of that blue line crag on your shelf, get rid of it now
This knowledge is available to every PD Dept.
Every police department department?
@@Redacted950 aw I'm 2 weeks late to comment that
@pts0721 You are correct. And yet... Available doesn't mean it reaches everyone.
@tacticalattorney, you're doing a great job in breaking down complex legal issues and covering all the bases. As a college Criminal Law Professor and retired 30-year LEO, I truly appreciate and applaud what you're doing!
Ahhh....but do they take advantage of that??? If they do, they must ignore what they read. JS you may find a handful of "Good Cops" in every state, but the majority are on a power trip and act like they have a God complex... all you here anymore is them shouting "OBEY" OR "DO AS I SAY".
Childish @@Redacted950
You might find a good connection with #longislandaudit or #lackluster
Thanks, I'll check it out.
Is there case law that kind of did away with community caretaker and wellfare checks ? I thought there was a case ( like uvalde) that did away with the presumption that police are suppose to caretake or protect ?
Seems very important to know
Honest questiom: how can community caretaking doctrine co-exist with Warren v DC and Castlerock v Gonzales?
Great question. The readers digest version of an answer is that these are civil cases applying a civil standard. The community caretaker doctrine has been determined to be reasonable under the 4th Amendment, a constitutional standard. There are major differences in constitutional tort vs state tort standards. Ultimately it depends upon the Supreme Courts interpretation. As we saw in Caniglia, the Court refused to extend that exception to homes.
@tacticalattorney thanks for the reply. I've been wondering about that for some time. On one hand, (oversimplified) SCOTUS seems to say cops are not responsible for public safety, but on another hand, (oversimplified) cops are not only responsible for public safety, but can violate the 4th amendment (an exception) to do so. Keep up the great content.
Loud music is pretty serious tho...
Can you do more case laws in a correctional setting.
What do you have in mind? I will certainly do my best!
Serious question, why don't academies teach basic Constitutional rights of citizens?
Should be in week 1
1-6 every day they should have it instilled! Easiest way....The Golden Rule, that rule, as I was taught, meant that How someone treats you is Exactly How you want to be treated.
Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. ___ (2021)
The "community caretaking" exception to the warrant requirement does not extend to the search of a house and seizure of firearms during a welfare check.
Thank you for what you do. We don't have enough resources regarding this. You got a sub.
Thank you, much appreciated!
Medical calls of a person who is unable to reach the door is not a community caretaker function?
No, the Court held the community caretaker exception is not reasonable for homes. However, the emergency scene exception would apply if objective facts exist showing an ongoing emergency.
For clarification, it is permissible to pursue a misdemeanor crime in to a residence as long as you have articulable facts and circumstances.
In Lange, the court stated that they were refusing to create a new exception to the warrant requirement in allowing an officer in hot pursuit of a misdemeanor subject to enter a home. However, they did say that if exigent circumstances exist, i.e destruction of evidence, emergency etc apply, than the entry may be justified. Practically speaking, especially in New Mexico, which has a strong preference for warrants, I can't think of many fact patterns that would justify exigent circumstances in the context of a misdemeanor. Great question Instructor Dela!
the case law cited above do not appear to support that. what are the circumstances?
This is 100 better than the boring ass CLE I have to sit through
That's the goal! Glad you liked it.
So two things... with entry into the home for open door alarm calls or deceased persons, would these now require a warrant? Or a different exception?
On Lange... he was trying to escape detention and had evidence of the DUI in his person, how is that not exigent? It seems to me it was argued from the wrong point of law.
The key takeaway from Lange is that the Court refused to create a categorical exception to the warrant requirement when it comes to hot pursuit and the subject is only suspected of committing a misdemeanor. If, using a totality of circumstances approach an officer can articulate exigent circumstances based upon flight, imminent harm to others, destruction of evidence, seriousness of the misdemeanor etc, it is possible that a court will still find exigent circumstances. They Court is just saying that its not automatic and you will have to articulate exigent circumstances. The case was remanded back to the lower Courts in California to see if exigent circumstances in fact exist. As to your second point, the emergency scene exception would likely apply to a welfare check, deceased person etc. Alarm calls by themselves may not rise to the level of exigent circumstances necessary for warrantless entry, I advise officers to always do a totality of circumstances approach. Awesome questions! I hope this helps.
@Tactical Attorney thanks for taking the time to reply.
Follow up to the alarm point... what about consent due to the alarm service?
Emergency scene? Is there a case law or other theory information you can cite for reference. There is a debate I'm looking to settle professionally.
@@Monster11B The question of implied consent based upon signing up for the alarm service has not been answered as far as I am aware. This question comes up during my search and seizure training quite frequently. Best practice would be to try and get the homeowners consent through dispatch, who is usually on the phone with the alarm company. The emergency scene exception might apply if an officer could articulate enough facts that a reasonable officer could infer an emergency effecting death or great bodily harm is at hand and immediate action is required. The leading case would be the U.S. Supreme Court case Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006)
the first cases i seen videos where swat are in army camo no insignas, no poilce no cloth badge
why dosent swat have a uniform in color of there regulur uniforms the word police a cloth badhe and nametag and being in new mexaco which has cartel problems i run too. second case is spot on
third the only offence they had was noise they were not suspicious pf drunk driving so wouldnt a knock and talk and then suspicion of inegreayion could be tried. and from videos being shown yes too many departments either never train on constutional rights and never have continuation education and this keeps on more police will wind up getting shot something i hope never happens
and the state must produce regulation on stricter training and if officer violates rightes sued or not they should be fired
For the last case in point. Yes the DWI was a misdemeanor. But at that point wasn’t he considered the to be eluding? (Felony here) Why didn’t they argue eluding?
A lot of states (idk about Cali) have dropped eluding to misdemeanor.
I watch this channel so I know wtf cops are gonna do
Watching the evening news and TH-cam, it's obvious not nearly enough cops watch your channel...yet, keep up the good work
Thank you! I agree lol.
Torres v. Madrid, 592 US _ (2021) application of physical force to the body of a person with the intent to restrain” constitutes a seizure, even when the force does not subdue the person.The Chief Justice emphasized two important lessons from the Court’s decision in California v. Hodari D.: common law arrests are seizures, and the common law treated “application of force to the body . . . with intent to restrain” as an arrest, even when the arrestee escaped. Relying on a dictionary definition at the time of the Fourth Amendment’s adoption, the Chief Justice noted that the term “seizure,” while ordinarily conveying the idea of taking possession, is a term that the Framers selected to be broad enough to cover “persons” in addition to property. The opinion continued to explain that because arrests are seizures of a person, Hodari D.’s historical analysis of the common law governing arrests was the correct approach for the case at hand.
I am sorry that is not how the works,and a judge had no right to say that any man knows that is not seized
I disagree with your view on Community Care taking. I believe you have misinterpreted the ruling. Officers can still enter the home if someone has a medical emergency based on the community care taking?
A medical emergency would meet exigent circumstances
It's abought TIME!
What kind of Police Officer would shoot into a vehicle that was leaving a scene, that the Police Officer was actively attempting to clear??
I mean, the IQ of the average officer must be below 50...Just smart enough to carry a Badge, but dumb enough to be very dangerous in public with a weapon.
I feel like it's common since that an application of force is a seizure and I'm surprised the Supreme Court needed to address it. Use of force is always done with intent to stop an action or movement, always.
I really like the decision in Lange vs California. While not making a categorical rule, they allowed the officers entry in this case and the misdemeanor was about as minor as it gets. He had some traffic violations and strange behavior, the DUI was not known at the time.
In many jurisdictions, a noise complaint isn't even a midemeanor. It is often only covered a municipal ordinance violation similar to what I would call a "status offence" or administrative violation. 16:38
Can cops walk up to you in a parked car in a parking lot, while it is off, without a traffic stop, open your door, pull you out, & search it?
It would depend on whether or not the automobile exception applies in that state and whether or not the officer's have probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime inside the vehicle.
@@tacticalattorney Nothing came out of it, so it's just out of curiosity but it's in Arizona, supposedly someone else saw "snort a white powder" (when in reality my friend & I were watching a Wilt Chamberlain highlight video & I took a sip from a straw out of my cup in the cup holder). Then they took me out, handcuffed me, removed my passenger & forced him to ID himself (he had a warrant for unpaid parking tickets & went to jail); however, after searching the vehicle & my pockets, they didn't find any "white powder" but towed my vehicle anyway.
@@BiasFreeTV It's impossible for me to speculate without seeing a body cam. Even if there is an innocent explanation, the courts view reasonable suspicion for an investigatory detention through objectively reasonable facts. The search of the car would still require consent or PC though.
@@tacticalattorney I completely understand, I just thought it was a lil sketch kuz the cops weren't the one who originally "saw" me in the first place. It was like a parking attendant from 10-15ft away, through tinted windows, in a Dodge Durang.
Then.. using a²(distance from the truck)+b²(necessary line of sight to see my hands in my lap )=c²→his height would have had to be in the range of 9'2"-11'5" 😂
I was considering a FOIA request for the body cams but I thought it might lead to retaliation.
How was the woman fleeing in her vehicle and almost running over a officer not reasonable for seizure? Or did I miss something?
The Supreme Court only addressed whether or not the woman was seized. Because the court found that she was seized under the 4th Amendment the case was sent back to the lower court to determine if the seizure was reasonable under Graham v. Connor.
@@tacticalattorney Thank you for the explanation!
Torres was just doing the same thimg police do: she reasonably feared for her life.
A seziure sounds like it's being used unconstitutionally
Especially for officer safety when they cuff you. How can both be ok?
You just gave lessons on how police can shoot people in the back and wLk away free...this makes all these problems WORSE
You need to cover right to travel
Right to travel is easy , Take one of foot and put it toe to heal to your other foot , now repeat until get to where you want to go . That's your right to travel.
@@bobbybishop5662
Guess you don’t care what the Supreme Court has to say like all cops if it doesn’t fit your narrative, it must be wrong
@@UnitedArmsOrganization Assuming you're referencing the Florida Supreme Court case Thompson Vs Smith, and choosing to cherry pick this quote:
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will,"
I guess you don't know how to read the very next paragraph which completely refutes your stance:
"The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it."
Pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw it.
Edited to fix formatting
Good info. Was unaware of these cases. Now if only police learned these and more common established law instead of ignoring or twisting the laws and then applied them correctly maybe we wouldn't have the level of distrust and hostility toward police we see today
Thank you sir, I'm sure trying my best to educate any officer I can.
Gil can you cite a specific example or are you running on rhetoric? "i know a guy..." just doesn't cut it for example of reasons for police hostility.
What I've found in my experience is a law degree and taking the bar exam doesn't mean they know the law or even use it properly and they have the single avenue approach
2nd cops lack the brain capacity to facilitate that level of knowledge hence when you ask a cop what is the US code or state statute number for the law you allegedly broke
Lastly they are not trained properly the POST teaches them how to escalate any situation and use deadly force necessary so the officer can make it home safely and we are know cops don't know how to act responsible or prudent they do whatever they want to create a victim at any cost to the what could be an innocent person
I'm a victim of these tyrants and their tyranny for the last 4+ yrs but I used deprivation of rights under color of law along with conspiracy against rights the civil rights act of 1866 enforced 1871 which the reason for the enforcement was qualified immunity was implemented so that's why it was enforced
I have disbarred my 1st inept counsel and he is serving 5 yrs in prison right now 4 of the 20 prosecutors on my case who pursued by breaking and bending perverting the law but those 4 were disbarred and the Det and 6 cops who were involved in my 2 kidnappings were decertified and my judge who is the Sr judge of the district will face the Grand Jury to be indicted he has been charged by the supreme court
2 of the cops were charged with unlawfully entering my house without producing a warrant they just walked in
My question to you is do cops have to read or listen to the oral arguments if available like Terry vs Ohio they use only suspicious which Hugo Black a racist KKK member said that but cops use that word do they not listen to the rebuttal arguments on what Hugo said about suspicious?
No that's stupid. Your going to give the public the go ahead and just flee. We have that issue now with no chase policies. A lot of times they will take off from a traffic stop and there's nothing we can do. Same with motorcycles we have a no motorcycle Chase policy so all they have to do is just drive away. You can't really get a warrant for the owner because you can't prove that person drove the vehicle. At some point the responsibility has to be on the Citizens.
Impound the vehicle that took off from you and don't release it, talk to the RO and see who was driving it at that time.
YOU ARE A LIFE SAVER!!! I am a Law Enforcement student and these videos have been beyond helpful for me!
What’s your address?
Glad they are helping. Thank you for choosing a career in law enforcement.
so im from the darkside! i find your prosocution side, gives easier and understandible side of justice!!! your the only you tuber that has ever, returned my comment! guess ill like, suscribe and donate $5 to patrion, ive only suscribed to like 3 you tubers, never liked or patrioned!? ty! very much...
#1 anyone can buy tactical gear that says police.
#2 better fit in those 3 narrow prongs and not blanket community caretaking reason. Community caretaking is still alive and well used in 2023
Hey wasnt the reason they approached the suv is they wanted it out of the way? Didnt she provide the action to their desire? And they shot her for it because? Surely it wasnt that someone stood in front of the suv to stop it leaving the scene.
When the goal of the group was to have her rapidly leave the scene.
Come on bonehead think.
As a LEO I appreciate your work. Thank you for the video education.
Thanks. I do it for you guys.
You’re not doing a very good job and training offices to do a good job at police officers. So many will and are being sued now and cost citizens around the country millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars now and lawsuits. Don’t you think your training is gone haywire and bad?
@@holdingcopsaccountable6554 It sounds like the agencies you are referring to are definitely the ones that need my training. Feel free to refer them to the channel.
@@tacticalattorney Los Angeles County sheriffs Department.
Your perspective isn’t law,that’s the problem
Good video. But who cares if cops are going to be bullies and ignore rights and laws either way
And learn "how best" to articulate the lie they are going to use to excuse it.
Always film the police and sue them whenever possible for their crimes
The three cases most cop won't know and refuse to know because they don't care about the laws only their ego and feelings and perceived authority they're not law enforcement they're more respect my authority enforcement with no to little education on the law.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Despicable and 😈
Thumbs down for the terrorist desecrated American flag in the background. Otherwise a very infirmative video but... the blue line flag is a black eye to all the soldiers who have died for our rights.
It's not an American flag .
you are just showing police an way to over look my rights stop!!!!!
Don’t listen to this guy. That not correct lol
I like the idea of this. I find it difficult to believe most officers enter the field to cause problems. I think it’s like any other job, they’re there to get paid. There’s no hero element bc that means ego, and we know where that leads all of us. But I do believe most humans want to help others. It makes us feel good. To enable officers to know the law is essential to their duties so I’m all for this as long as their intentions are in the right place. Preserving citizens rights preserves their own and those of their families. Every time an officer violates a single individuals rights they violate they risk it happening to themselves or others in the future.
To any and all officers watching this video and reading my comments, firstly thank you for your time doing so.
Secondly, please remember that, in general, humans are assholes. Dealing with that is a huge part of your job but if you remember it’s just that, a job, and that they’re just seeing a uniform, you’ll be able to brush off 99% of the bullshit. Most families can’t even get along, so it’s not humane but unfortunately it is the norm that we’re testy, emotional, stressed out creatures with the ability and right to send nonsense in the direction of eachother and for the most part, we do🙄 Let the uniform absorb it, not your mind. Words are just vibration and air. They evaporate almost instantly so you have the CHOICE whether or not you turn those vibrations into your body reacting or even letting them take up free space in your mind. You’ve heard trillions of words in your life and you’ve always chosen which do or do not take root. Grow beautiful things in your mind like true knowledge and let the vibration and air of hate dissipate. Only those who truly know your heart should be able to hurt you. Take a deep breath, remember who you are and remind yourself they are just words. That those who know you love you.
Thirdly, remember to smile! That how you approach people, matters. It’s ok to be happy and to focus on the good despite the bad you see. Don’t let the bad infect you.
Overturn Terry v. Ohio - !!!
better idea: simply abolish law enforcement, end of a LOT of problems
You couldn't be more wrong on the cases you are covering, and you are practicing law with out a license. You are also calling for others to brake the law by giving them legal advise, and are not even versed enough to tell people this is not legal advice... WTH?
Back the blue until it happens to you
Hypothetical Situation (by the way I love your channel). I spent a year in law school many years ago & getting ready to retire from I.T and will go back to law school next year.
Here's the hypothetical situation. I live in a gated community. I am riding my motorcycle back home from a ride and very close to home I pass a LEO on a windy road and go through the gate to my community. Unbeknownest to me the cop starts following me (misdemeanor speeding on his mind). I pass through the gate with my pass, but he gets stopped at the gate and has to be 'allowed in' by the guard. I pull back in my garage. He loses sight of me at the gate and drives around the community looking for me. I am back in my garage (attached to the house) The garage door is open, he spots me taking off my helmet and enters the garage to detain me for speeding. Is this considered hot pursuit. Does an exigent circumstance exist to enter my premises (misdemeanor speeding) ? Thanks in advance!
Case law would appear to be on the side of the motorcycle rider: verdict.justia.com/2020/12/30/can-a-misdemeanor-count-as-an-emergency-for-purposes-of-skipping-the-warrant