6 Informer 18
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Department of Homeland Security Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers Office of Chief Counsel Legal Training Division June 2018 THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT -INFORMER- A MONTHLY LEGAL RESOURCE AND COMMENTARY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND AGENTS Welcome to this installment of The Federal Law Enforcement Informer (The Informer). The Legal Training Division of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers’ Office of Chief Counsel is dedicated to providing law enforcement officers with quality, useful and timely United States Supreme Court and federal Circuit Courts of Appeals reviews, interesting developments in the law, and legal articles written to clarify or highlight various issues. The views expressed in these articles are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. The Informer is researched and written by members of the Legal Division. All comments, suggestions, or questions regarding The Informer can be directed to the Editor at (912) 267-3429 or [email protected]. You can join The Informer Mailing List, have The Informer delivered directly to you via e-mail, and view copies of the current and past editions and articles in The Quarterly Review and The Informer by visiting https://www.fletc.gov/legal-resources. This edition of The Informer may be cited as 6 INFORMER 18. Get THE INFORMER Free Every Month Click HERE to Subscribe THIS IS A SECURE SERVICE. You will receive mailings from no one except the FLETC Legal Division. The Informer – June 2018 Case Summaries United States Supreme Court City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt: Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Self Incrimination Clause prohibits the use of compelled statements at a probable cause hearing..................................6 Collins v. Virginia: Whether a police officer could enter private property without a warrant or consent, approach a home, and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement..............7 Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida: Whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim as a matter of law..............................................8 Carpenter v. United States: Whether the Fourth Amendment requires the government to get a search warrant to obtain historical cell site location information from wireless carriers or if this information can be obtained by a court order under Section 2703(d) of the Stored Communications Act......................................................................................................9 Circuit Courts of Appeals Second Circuit United States v. Alexander: Whether the area where an officer found two guns was part of the curtilage of the defendant’s home..................................................................................11 Third Circuit United States v. Foster: Whether an officer established reasonable suspicion to detain a suspect, handcuff him, and transport him back to the crime scene for identification purposes.....12 Fourth Circuit United States v. Louis: Whether a photo array was impermissibly suggestive.............................13 United States v. Kolsuz: Whether a forensic search of the defendant’s cell phone was lawful under the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement..........15 Sixth Circuit United States v. Sweeney: Whether the warrantless search of the defendant’s residence and seizure of his cell phone by his parole officer and DHS agents was reasonable........................16 Seventh Circuit United States v. Thurman: Whether the defendant voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and whether he voluntarily consented to a search of his cell phone.......................................17 United States v. Key: Whether the discovery and subsequent seizure of evidence from the defendant’s motel room was lawful under the plain view doctrine............................................19 2 Eighth Circuit United States v. Garcia: Whether an officer’s encounter with the defendant on an Amtrak train was consensual and whether the defendant voluntarily consented to a search of his bag........20 United States v. Perez-Trevino: Whether an officer conducted a valid inventory search of the defendant’s car and whether the government established probable cause and satisfied the necessity requirement in its application for a wiretap warrant...................................................21 United States v. Edwards: Whether officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant and search his car under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement....................................................................................................................................22 Ninth Circuit United States v. Johnson: Whether officers conducted a valid inventory search of the defendant’s car after arresting him............................................................................................23 Tenth Circuit United States v. Hammond: Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to frisk the passenger of a car for weapons during a traffic stop........................................................................25 Eleventh Circuit Montanez v. Carvajal: Whether the officers’ multiple warrantless entries into the plaintiff’s house violated the Fourth Amendment..........................................................................25 United States v. Touset: Whether a forensic search of the defendant’s electronic devices was lawful under the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement...26 ♦ FLETC Talks A brief review of United States Supreme Court cases involving a variety of Constitutional issues relevant to law enforcement officers. 1. Minnesota v. Dickerson (Plain-Touch Doctrine) When a police officer detects contraband through his or her sense of touch during a lawful Terry frisk, does the Fourth Amendment permit the officer to seize it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s4bDZ83krw For the Court’s opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/366/case.pdf ♦ 3 2. O’Connor v. Ortega (Government Workplace Searches) A discussion of the Fourth Amendment rights of government employees with regard to administrative searches in the workplace, during investigations by supervisors for suspected violations of agency policy rather than by law enforcement officers for criminal offenses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeTm3GrzR4Q For the Court’s opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/709/case.html ♦ 3. New York v. Belton (Search Incident to Arrest – Vehicles) Can police officers lawfully search the passenger compartment of a vehicle and containers found within it after arresting the occupants? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngn9LATgI-M For the Court’s opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/453/454/case.html ♦ 4. Government Employees and Free Speech Rights The First Amendment permits, in certain circumstances, government employees, to include police officers, to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern. Click on the link below for a discussion on the limitations a government employer can place on its employees right to free speech under the First Amendment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6EBfL9_oPY ♦ FLETC Informer Webinar Schedule 1. Understanding the Administrative / Inspection Search (1-hour) Presented by John Besselman, Senior Advisor for Training, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, Glynco, Georgia This unique government authority and its limitations is, at times, misunderstood. This webinar will explain how, why and when an agency has the ability to conduct an administrative inspection. All are welcome to attend. Recommended for those agencies that possess an inspection power. Thursday July 19, 2018 – 10:30 a.m. EDT To participate in this webinar: https://share.dhs.gov/inspections/ ♦ 4 2. Searching Cars Without Warrants (the Mobile Conveyance Doctrine / Carroll Doctrine / Automobile Exception) (1-hour) Presented by Paul Sullivan and Patrick Walsh, Attorney-Advisors / Branch Chiefs, Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, Glynco, Georgia In Collins v. Virginia, decided on May 29, 2018, the Supreme Court had to determine if a law enforcement officer could intrude upon the curtilage of a home and conduct a warrantless search of a motorcycle under the mobile conveyance doctrine. This webinar will review the history of the mobile conveyance doctrine, discuss Collins v. Virginia, and explain how the Collins opinion affects law enforcement officers in future investigations. Thursday July 26, 2018 – 3:00 p.m. EDT To participate in this webinar: https://share.dhs.gov/walsh/ ♦ To participate in a FLETC Informer Webinar 1. Click on the link to access the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN). 2. If you have a HSIN account, enter with your login and password information. 3. If you do not have a HSIN account, click on the button next to “Enter as a Guest.” 4. Enter your name and click the “Enter” button. 5. You will now be in the meeting room and will be able to participate in the event. 6. Even though meeting rooms may be accessed before an event, there may be times when a meeting room is closed while an instructor is setting up the room. 7. If you experience any technical issues / difficulties during the login process, please call our audio bridge line at (877) 446-3914 and enter participant passcode 232080 when