It's the Law! - Updated
June 2, 2009
The "Cardinal Principle of Police Use of Force restraint" is that "if it is not necessary to use more force, it is necessary not to use more force."
It is important for a jury to understand police procedures and training along with the underlying reasons officers are given that training.
To be reasonable, force has to be designed to accomplish a legitimate objective efficiently.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ARIZONA v. GANT
Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. This Court rejects a broad reading of Belton that would permit a vehicle search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest even if there were no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search.
The safety and evidentiary justifications underlying Chimel’s exception authorize a vehicle search only when there is a reasonable possibility of such access.
State
of Arizona v Gant Remanded
STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JULIAN MARQUEZ
‘‘An identification procedure is unnecessarily suggestive only if it gives rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.’’
We would, of course, encourage the state’s law enforcement agencies to maintain currency in the latest research in this field and to adapt their policies to implement the most accurate, reliable and practical identification procedures available.
Pearson v Callahan Summary Judgment Order of Battle
Because the two-step Saucier procedure is often, but not always, advantageous, those judges are in the best position to determine the order of decisionmaking that will best facilitate the fair and efficient disposition of each case. Petitioners were entitled to rely on these cases, even though their own Federal Circuit had not yet ruled on consent-once-removed entries.
CARSWELL v BOROUGH OF HOMESTEAD
The court found that a reasonable officer would not be expected to take the risk of being assaulted by a fleeing man who was so close that he could grapple with him and seize the gun. Qualified immunity operates to protect officers from the sometimes hazy border between excessive and acceptable force. The Constitution does not mandate the types of equipment a police department must provide to its officers. Snyder also said that if he had had non-lethal weapons in his possession, he would not have pulled his gun from the holster. Reasonableness is to be evaluated from the "perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." We conclude that at most Synder's conduct was a mistake that was reasonable under the circumstances.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
"...the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
Arizona v. Johnson Per Se Terry Frisk of Car Stop Passenger to be decided by US Supreme Court
Buckley v Haddock Multiple Drive Stun Taser Video
Buckley v Haddock 11th Circuit Multiple Drive Stun Taser found 'Reasonable'
Taser as Excessive Force - Prolonged Exposure Duration of Application
Beaver v Federal Way - Multiple Uses of Taser Defined as Excessive Force
Connecticut v Burroughs Constitutional Standards Defined for Seizure
Blake v City of New York - Deadly Force Standard
Connecticut v Burroughs Constitutional Standards Defined Seizures

Virginia v Moore PC Standard under the Fourth Amendment
Connecticut v Silva Interfering with Officer - Refused to Identify
Price v City of Portland Deadly Force Decision Training
-
State of Connecticut v. Marti Stop & Identify OK
-
US v Berry Forced Exigent Entry ok
-
Aselton v East Hartford 911 Dispatch Negligence Denied
-
Melanson v West Hartford Tactical Entry friendly fire Shooting
-
Connecticut v Ramirez Off-duty Assault on Police Officer
-
Levandoski v Cone Fireman's Rule Negligence OK'd 
-
US v Davenport Terry Stop
-
State v Brunetti Warrantless Search
-
State V Brunetti Warrantless Consensual Search Standard Set 
-
State V Brunetti Dissent
-
State v Brunetti 2nd Dissent
-
Georgia v Randolph Present Co-occupant Must Both Grant Permission for Warrantless Search
-
State v Ledbetter Show-up Identification Standard
-
Callum v. Colchester False Arrest Immunity
-
Riordan v. Joyner Felony Stop Force Immunity
-
Inturri v. Hartford Officer Personal Appearance tattoos
-
Cardona v. Connolly Handcuffing Immunity
-
Smith v. Town of East Haven Duty to Protect
-
State v McCullough Extra-jurisdiction Pursuit and Arrest ok
-
Daubert denied on-duty Workman's Compensation Injury
-
State of Connecticut v Santos Unlawful Terry Stop
-
United States v Daily lawful Terry Stop & Seizure
-
State v Mann Forced Warrantless Entry Terry Frisk Unlawful
-
State v Mann Reversed by State Supreme Court
-
Teresa v Ragaglia Duty to Protect
-
Ross v. Rell Temporary Restraining Order
-
Fitness for Duty Standard set by Connecticut Supreme Court 
-
State v. Browne Pursuit results in Criminal Negligent Homicide standard
-
Connecticut Firearms Laws
-
Connecticut Assault Weapons Ban Statute CGS 53-202a
-
State v Aloi Right to Refuse ID confirmed in Connecticut
Over Ruled by State Supreme Court January 2, 2007
-
Stop & Identify Authority during a Terry Stop - Connecticut v Aloi
-
Hiibel Terry Stop Forced to Provide Identification
-
Connecticut Civilian Arrest Authority
-
State v Brown Firearm Defined
-
State v Hardy Appellate Court Deadly Weapon Defined
-
State v Hardy Supreme Court Deadly Weapon Defined 
-
State Supreme Court affirms State v Hardy
-
Dziekan v. Gaynor off-duty dog shooting justified
-
Santiago v City of Hartford Monell Immunity 
-
State v Fermaint Constructive Possession Standard
-
Muehler et al. v. Mena Handcuffing ok during swat entry
-
Devenpeck v. Alford warrantless arrest
-
State v Smith Murder warrant
-
State v Smith Probable Cause Ruling
-
State v Smith Appellate Court Reversal of Conviction
-
State of New York v.Tanella
-
US v. Patane Miranda not required
-
Yarborough v. Alvarado Miranda Warning Custody Test
-
Thompson v. Keohane Custody Defined
-
Illinois v. Lidster Informational Roadblocks ok'd by US Supreme Court
-
Maryland v Pringle probable cause drug possession for all vehicle occupants
-
United States v Banks 20 Seconds Knock & Announce Forced Entry OK'd
-
State of Connecticut v Scribner 14-283 Officer Conviction Upheld
-
Sacramento v Lewis High Speed Pursuit Purpose to Cause Harm Standard
-
State v Carolina Full Custody Arrest authorized for motor vehicle infractions and offenses
-
Atwater v City of Largo Full Custody Arrest traffic fine only
-
State of Connecticut v Smith Citizen Arrest Authority
-
Saucier v Katz U.S. Supreme Court Qualified Immunity Test
-
Qualified Immunity Denied under Saucier v Katz OC Q-tip Use Held Unreasonable
-
United States v Arvizu Articulable Suspicion test for motor vehicle stops
-
Thornton v. US Motor Vehicle Search ok after Arrest of Recent Occupant
-
Roper v Simmons Death Penalty Denied to 16 & 17 year old Murderers
-
State of Connecticut v. Michael Skakel
-
Illinois v Caballes Dog Snif ok
-
Missouri v. Seibert Interrogation Tactic Unconstitutional Miranda Required
-
State v Czyzewski Extra-jurisdiction Terry Stops Allowed
-
State of Connecticut v Clark Stop & Frisk
-
State of Connecticut v Carolina full custody arrest authority for traffic infractions and offenses
-
U.S. Supreme Court Illinois v Wardlow Right to run from the police denied
-
Whren v United States Articulable Suspicion Standard set by US Supreme Court
-
U.S. Supreme Court Home Probation Searches Authorized on Reasonable Suspicion
-
Constitutional Individual Right to Bear Arms Affirmed 
-
Parker v District of Columbia Right to Bear Arms
-
9th Circuit Court ruling on Q-tip application of OC
-
Home Thermal Imaging is a Constitutional Violation
-
U.S. Supreme Court Dickerson Miranda Ruling
-
Sabir v Jowett No Probable cause Excessive Force
-
State v Salaman Intent to Shoot Standard
-
Connecticut v Scruggs C.G.S. 53-21 Unconstitutionally Vague
-
Samson v California The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee.
-
Hudson v Michigan Knock & Announce Violation does not trigger Exclusionary Rule violation
-
Connecticut v Nash Terry Stop & Frisk Standard 
-
GARCETTI, et al., PETITIONERS v. RICHARD CEBALLOS When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.
-
BRIGHAM CITY, UTAH v. STUART et al - Police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury.
-
Report on the Death of Jashon Bryant Requesting Manslaughter 1st Degree
-
Report on the Death of Robert Miessau in Waterbury on February 21, 2006
-
State Police Commissioner Boyle Opposes State-Wide Arrest Powers for Local Officers
-
State Police Commissioner's Second Letter Opposing Arrest Powers
-
Connecticut Police Chief's Association Supports State Wide Arrest Powers
-
Proposed House Bill 5464 Arrest Powers for Local Peace Officers
-
Connecticut v Browne Unlawful Search Warrant Seizure 
-
Jones v East Haven New Trial Ordered for Compensatory Damages 
-
SCOTT v. HARRIS (No. 05-1631) 433 F. 3d 807, reversed. A police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death."
Scott v Harris PIT as Deadly Force
-
US v McCargo Suspiciousless Frisk OK for Suspect Transport
-
Brendlin v California Passenger seizure Standard 
-
BRENDLIN v. CALIFORNIA US Supreme Court Rules Passengers as well as Driver are seized for Fourth Amendment Purposes
-
Connecticut v Batts lawful Investigatory Stop Standard
-
Connecticut v Milotte Suspiciousless MV stop
-
Connecticut V. Burroughs - Unlawful Terry Stop 
-
Connecticut v Nash Terry Stop
-
Report on the Death of Eric Habel
-
Young v City of Providence off-duty Shooting Liability
-
Interfering with an Officer C.G.S. 53a-167a - Stop & Identify Authority during a Terry Stop - Connecticut v Aloi
-
Milner v. Duncklee, No. 3:02cv1929 (D. Conn. 11/08/2006) Capias Forced Entry Standard
-
Connecticut v Jenkins Unlawful Seizure MV Stop
-
Connecticut v Jenkins Unlawful Seizure MV Stop Dissent