POLICE

Bailey v. United States

Issues

May police officers, prior to executing a search warrant, follow and detain a person seen leaving the premises after that person leaves the immediate area?

 

Chunon L. Bailey was detained approximately a mile from his residence after two police officers observed him leave his home prior to the execution of a search warrant. The officers brought Bailey back to his home and arrested him after the search turned up drugs and a gun. Bailey seeks to vacate his conviction, arguing that the detention violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. In this case, the Court must resolve a circuit split surrounding the application of Michigan v. Summers, which held that police may detain an occupant outside of the premises to be searched so long as the detention is reasonable. Bailey argues that Summers should not be extended to situations where the occupant has left the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched, as this expansion would further none of the justifications described by the Court in that case. In response, the United States argues that the reasoning underlying Summers justifies this detention and that any potential Fourth Amendment issues can be resolved by a reasonableness test. If the Supreme Court sides with the United States and affirms the decision below, the scope of police power to detain occupants prior to the execution of a search warrant will be significantly expanded. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether, pursuant to Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981), police officers may detain an individual incident to the execution of a search warrant when the individual has left the immediate vicinity of the premises before the warrant is executed.

On July 28, 2005, two officers of the Suffolk County Police Department executed a search warrant for a basement apartment at 103 Lake Drive in Wyandanch, New York. United States v. Bailey, 652 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

Barnes v. Felix

Issues

When analyzing whether a law enforcement officer used excessive force, should courts consider context outside of the narrow time when the officer’s safety was threatened?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether courts should consider context outside of the narrow time when the officer’s safety was threatened when analyzing whether a law enforcement officer used excessive force. The Fifth Circuit applies the “moment of the threat” doctrine when analyzing the reasonableness of the use of deadly force by a police officer. Under the “moment of the threat” doctrine, the court can only consider the instance at which an officer deployed the deadly force in its reasonableness analysis. Barnes argues that the “moment of the threat” doctrine should be rejected because it contravenes precedents established by the Supreme Court and because it raises impossible line-drawing problems. Felix counters that the “moment of the threat” doctrine is consistent with precedent and is a straightforward analysis that does not raise line-drawing issues. The outcome of this case has strong implications for law enforcement and community relations.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether courts should apply the "moment of the threat" doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment.

On April 28, 2016, Officer Roberto Felix, Jr. shot and killed Ashtian Barnes after a traffic stop. Barnes v. Felix at 2. Before the killing, the Harris County Toll Road Authority provided Felix with a plate number that had outstanding violations.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Collins v. Virginia

Issues

Under the Fourth Amendment, does the automobile exception allow a police officer to search a motorcycle parked near a house on private property without a warrant?

This case, in which a police officer searched a stolen motorcycle on private property without a warrant, encapsulates a battle between two conflicting Fourth Amendment doctrines. Collins, arrested for receiving stolen property, argues that the police are forbidden from conducting a warrantless search of the area surrounding his home—the curtilage, which receives the same special constitutional protections as the home itself. Collins maintains that allowing the police to search his curtilage erodes Fourth Amendment rights and eliminates an important constitutional constraint on searches. Virginia counters that the officer’s search was justified by the automobile exception because, people have lowered expectations of privacy in their automobiles, which are heavily regulated property. Furthermore, as automobiles can be quickly moved out of a warrant’s jurisdiction, Virginia contends that requiring the police to wait for a warrant is impractical and would impede police investigations. How the Court decides on the constitutionality of the search will determine whether the automobile exception applies to vehicles on private property, or if that exception is superseded by the protections of curtilage.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.

In June and July 2013, Albemarle County police officers twice recorded a distinctive black and orange motorcycle eluding police pursuit by traveling significantly over the speed limit. Collins v. Commonwealth, 790 S.E.2d 611, 612–13 (Va. 2016). The police car video camera photographed the motorcycle’s license plates and driver. Id. at 613.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Gonzalez v. Trevino

Issues

Does the Nieves probable cause exception to retaliatory arrest claims apply to all First Amendment retaliatory claims, or is it limited to individual retaliation claims when conducting “split second” arrests; and, if Nieves does apply all First Amendment retaliatory claims, what kind of evidence is required to satisfy its probable cause exception? 

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the Mt. Healthy burden-shifting test about unconstitutional motives for government actions applies, or whether the Nieves bar to retaliatory arrest claims resulting from an arrest supported by probable cause applies in this case. Gonzalez maintains the Mt. Healthy holding covers all arrests except for retaliatory prosecutions and on-the-spot police arrests, while Trevino argues the Nieves exception applies to all First Amendment retaliatory arrest claims. Furthermore, in the event the Nieves bar does apply, the Supreme Court is asked to determine what kind of evidence is sufficient to rebut the probable cause presumption. Gonzalez maintains she is only required to show objective evidence, while Trevino maintains she needs to show “comparator evidence,” which is evidence of non-arrested people who engaged in similar conduct but not the same kind of protected speech. This case touches upon important questions of whether causes of action for retaliatory arrests deter police abuse or unfairly burden law enforcement, and how best to encourage First Amendment protected speech.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether the probable-cause exception in Nieves v. Bartlett can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened; and (2) whether Nieves is limited to individual claims against arresting officers for split-second arrests.

In 2019, Petitioner Sylvia Gonzalez was elected to the Castle Hills, Texas, city council. Gonzalez v. Trevino, at 2. On May 21, she sat for her first city council meeting, where a town resident presented a petition that Gonzalez had helped create. Id. The petition “called for the removal of the city manager from office.” Id. The meeting stretched until May 22; once it ended, Gonzalez left her binder unattended to talk to a constituent.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Brian Richardson for his guidance and insights into this case.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

qualified immunity

Subscribe to POLICE