It's the Law! - Updated February 1, 2010

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.

Connecticut v. Grant Firearm defined

Pepper Spray is a Per Se 'Dangerous Weapon' in Connecticut

CONNECTICUT v. PAUL OVECHKA Dissent

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.

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.

"...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."