CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘#police’

Fourteen Seconds Plus Emergency Lights Equals Probable Cause To Arrest

Posted on: June 11th, 2018

By: Charles Reed

There is a saying that “nothing good ever happens after midnight.” Both City of Hollywood, Florida police officer Ronald Cannella and citizen Livingston Manners would become very familiar with this saying after the events of June 24, 2014. On that day, close to three in the morning, Officer Cannella patrolled a residential area of the city due to a series of recent thefts. Manners, a Hollywood resident, was sitting in his car on the side of the road before heading to work and, shortly after Cannella passed by him on patrol, Manners pulled out and made a turn. What happened after that is largely in dispute, but what is undisputed is that Cannella approached Manners’ vehicle with emergency equipment activated. Manners saw Cannella behind him with lights and siren activated and, instead of stopping his car, Manners drove another fourteen seconds – approximately one tenth of a mile – at a slow speed to reach a well-lit gas station where video surveillance was available. Manners testified that he did not immediately stop his vehicle because it was late at night in a very dark area and, as a large African-American male, he was in fear for his life. However, Manners’ actions captured by videotape thereafter appeared to contradict his purported fear as he argued with Cannella and actively grappled with Cannella as Cannella attempted to arrest him. It took five officers and two taser deployments over a period of three minutes to get Manners in handcuffs.

After Manners was acquitted of the criminal charges stemming from the incident, he sued Cannella and others. On the issue of probable cause, the Eleventh Circuit held in Manners v. Cannella, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 15007 (June 4, 2018) that Cannella had probable cause to arrest Manners for fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer by driving “for three blocks, or one-tenth of a mile, or for 14.4 seconds after seeing Officer Cannella was behind him with the patrol car’s lights and sirens on.” Id. at *19. This probable cause was present even though Manners rolled down his windows and drove a slower rate of speed (25 miles per hour) before pulling over to the gas station. The Court analogized Manners’ conduct with previous Florida cases involving a ten mile-per-hour drive for five minutes and a one to two-mile drive after lights and sirens were present. Id. at 21-22. The Court shrugged off Manners’ concerns for his safety by filtering his flight through the doctrine of necessity under state law and further held “a generalized fear of police does not provide a legal basis to vitiate probable cause for the offense of flight.” Id. at 23-24.

The Eleventh Circuit’s analysis of this issue reflects the tension between the law and instructions sometimes provided to the general public when approached by law enforcement late at night. In some instances, especially where the citizen is approached by a person impersonating an officer, news reports will quote senior command staff recommending that citizens call 9-1-1 or travel to well-lit areas late at night if they are uncomfortable with emergency lights behind them.[1] On the other hand, should citizens follow these instructions, they risk arrest and prosecution for flight even if – as in this case – the duration of the travel is a tenth of a mile. For now, at least in the Eleventh Circuit, it appears that law enforcement officers may be justified in effecting an arrest in such situations and may not face civil liability for the exercise of their arrest powers.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Charles Reed at [email protected].

[1] A snapshot of various news articles around the country concerning late night stops between citizens and law enforcement: Chicago Tribune, News4JAX, and South Miami.

You Gotta Fight For Your Right… To Flip The Bird?

Posted on: February 9th, 2018

By: Sara E. Brochstein and Kevin R. Stone

Flick off. Flip off. Give the finger. Flip the bird. One finger salute. No matter what you call it, raising the middle finger is a long-recognized gesture used to express contempt, anger, or protest.

This past week, Mark May of Indiana filed a federal lawsuit, claiming that his free speech per the First Amendment was violated when he was issued a ticket for giving the middle finger to a state trooper.

When the trooper cut May off in traffic, May flipped the bird. In response, the trooper pulled May over and gave him a ticket for provocation, of which May was later found guilty. When May challenged the decision, the judgment was deemed void. With the assistance of the ACLU of Indiana, May then filed suit, arguing that his free bird was protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Although May’s lawsuit is currently pending, the Georgia Supreme Court recently addressed a similar situation, finding that a “disorderly conduct” statute did not prohibit a man from raising his middle finger to a pastor during a church service. According to the court, a raised middle finger, by itself, does not, without more, amount to fighting words or a true threat. Federal courts throughout the country have reached the same general consensus. In certain limited circumstances, however, when accompanied by other less expressive and more threatening conduct, raising the middle finger may constitute fighting words or a true threat not protected by the First Amendment.

At the end of the day, law enforcement officers should be mindful that flagrant flips of the finger may be lawful. Citizens should remember that, when letting the middle finger fly, whether in anger, protest, or just because you can, there may be unintended consequences, as one woman learned the hard way.

If you have any questions or would like more information please contact either Sara Brochstein at [email protected] or Kevin Stone at [email protected].

Study Finds No Significant Impact of Body Cameras on Police Conduct or Citizen Complaints

Posted on: November 13th, 2017

By: Wesley C. Jackson

In response to recent high-profile officer-involved shootings, many commentators are touting police body cameras as a way to keep police accountable. The hypothesis is that when police and citizens know they are being watched, they are more likely to behave civilly during confrontations. Specifically, body cameras are thought to deter officers from engaging in excessive force or other unprofessional conduct and to encourage citizens to be less resistant or combative when interacting with police.

But how does this theory hold up under examination? Not very well, according to a working paper discussing the findings of a recent controlled study of policing behaviors and outcomes in the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. The study found that the use of police body cameras had no statistically significant impact on officers’ use of force, citizen complaints, policing activity, or judicial outcomes.

The study examined the effect of police body cameras on multiple variables as the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department began issuing cameras to its officers. Specifically, the study observed officers who were randomly assigned body cameras and compared those officers’ rates of use of force and citizen complaints to a control group of officers who did not receive cameras. The evaluation period ran for 18 months from June 2015 to December, 2016.

The paper’s authors concluded that as to use of force, citizen complaints, police activity, and judicial outcomes, the analyses “consistently point to a null result: the average treatment effect on all of the measured outcomes was very small, and no estimate rose to statistical significance at conventional levels.” In other words, the use of police cameras produced no measurable difference in police conduct, at least in this study.

What explains this unexpected outcome? One explanation is simply that body cameras do not change police or citizen behavior. Indeed, in the heat of the moment, the implications of a body camera will likely be the last thing on an officer’s or citizen’s mind. The researchers also posit that the results could be particular to the D.C. police: as the police force for the nation’s capital, the D.C. police may already be more disciplined than the average police force due to the increased scrutiny it receives and the officers’ frequent experience handling citizen interactions under pressure at inaugurations, protests, and other such events. Additionally, the results could be due to a “spillover” effect: officers who were not assigned body cameras may nevertheless have adjusted their conduct, knowing that other officers in the area may be wearing body cameras.

The researchers concluded that “Law enforcement agencies . . . that are considering adopting [body cameras] should not expect dramatic reductions in use of force or complaints, or other large-scale shifts in police behavior, solely from the deployment of this technology.” Even so, agencies should note that the study did not examine one important consideration in adopting body cameras: the effect additional video evidence will have on civil rights lawsuits alleging improper police conduct. Even if the use of body cameras will not produce department-wide improvements in police conduct, they could still be useful in defending officers and municipalities in civil rights lawsuits.

Police body cameras can also provide non-measurable benefits, such as streamlining internal investigations of citizen complaints and providing the appearance of police accountability to the community. That is to say, while this recent study does not establish that police body cameras have a measurable effect on policing, body cameras may nevertheless be a useful tool to departments for other reasons.

If you have questions about this topic or would like more information, please contact Wes Jackson at [email protected].

GPS Tracking Devices – The Answer to Stopping High-Speed Pursuits?

Posted on: November 1st, 2017

By: Sun Choy

In the era of drones and artificial intelligence, it was only a matter of time before technology caught up to stopping high-speed pursuits. In a suburb of metropolitan Atlanta, a police department successfully deployed a GPS tracking device to terminate a pursuit and later arrest the fleeing suspect based on the information transmitted by the device. At a cost of $5,000 a piece, it may be cost prohibitive for many agencies. Even if available, many pursuits may still require immediate termination by PIT maneuver (Pursuit Intervention Technique) or spike strips to stop the danger posed by the fleeing suspect. While it remains to be seen how effective the GPS tracking device will be long term, it is encouraging to see technology used to mitigate the inherent dangers associated with high-speed pursuits.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Sun Choy at [email protected].

Home Run for Analysis of Use of Force During Medical Emergencies

Posted on: October 31st, 2017

By: Kevin R. Stone and Sara E. Brochstein

I’m bad at baseball.  When I step in the batter’s box, I might as well have two strikes against me before the pitcher unleashes his first fastball.  For me, it’s no big deal; I’m destined to strike out anyway.  The Sixth Circuit, however, recognizes that’s no way to treat law enforcement officers faced with the difficult choice to use force in response to medical emergencies.

In determining whether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred in excessive force cases, the evidence must demonstrate that the officer’s actions were “objectively reasonable” under the totality of the circumstances.  The Supreme Court has provided three over-arching factors to consider in this analysis: (1) the severity of the crime; (2) whether the suspect actively resisted or evaded arrest; and (3) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat.  (The Graham factors.)

When responding to a medical emergency, however, two of those factors usually don’t exist: no crime (strike one) and, by extension, no resisting or evading arrest (strike two).  Thus, the officer’s choice to use force may rest on a single factor, which the officer may have to assess and act on in a split second.  Acknowledging that the Graham factors are not exhaustive and that medical emergencies create unique challenges for law enforcement officers, the Sixth Circuit, in Hill v. Miracle, established a list of additional non-exhaustive factors to consider when determining whether an officer’s use of force is objectively reasonable in such situations:

(1) Was the person experiencing a medical emergency that rendered him incapable of making a rational decision under circumstances that posed an immediate threat of serious harm to himself or others?

(2) Was some degree of force reasonably necessary to ameliorate the immediate threat?

(3) Was the force used more than reasonably necessary under the circumstances (i.e., was it excessive)?

The court explains: “If the answers to the first two questions are ‘yes,’ and the answer to the third question is ‘no,’ then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.  These questions and answers serve as a guide to assist the court in resolving the ultimate issue of whether the officers’ actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them.”

The Sixth Circuit’s opinion drives home the principle that rote application of the Graham factors may cause an unfair strike out.  Objective reasonableness requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances and deserves a careful, fact-specific assessment in each case.  Whether other circuits will hit home runs and also apply these new factors remains to be seen.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Kevin R. Stone at [email protected] or Sara E. Brochstein at [email protected].