The BRENDLIN case -- Seizures of Passengers

Question: Attached is the case of Brendlin V. California. I do not know if you are familar with it or not. A fellow officer and I have been discussing speaking with passengers on traffic stop. Now the case specifically attached sounds like they did not have a reason to stop the vehicle and then questioned the passenger because they knew him as a parolee or a brother to a parolee. Is the big thing with case the actually traffic stop?

Answer: Brendlin is actually a good case for you officers even though the officers in this case lost. I'll try to explain why.

An officer stopped the car in which Brendlin was a passenger -- but there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop. He stopped it more or less for fun -- wanted to see if the driver had his registration or something like that. (The Supreme Court ruled a long time ago in DELAWARE V PROUSE that officers must generally have at least resonable suspicion to stop a driver.)

Once the officer stopped the car, he noticed that the passenger was wanted. He arrested Brendlin and found crime-related evidence. (Those are the facts close enough for govt and this issue.) --

The United States Supreme Court ruled that officers seized the passenger -- just like the driver -- when the officer stopped the car -- and also held that officers may not stop a vehicle without reasonable suspicion -- therefore ALL occupants of the vehicle were seized unconstitutionally -- including the passenger. (But my book already says this)

Here is the reason the case is good for officers -- the court ruled that passengers are seized in the same way the driver is. That means that passengers are no more free to leave than the driver.

Read my legal source book and you will know lots more about the issue of seizures of passengers.

Top 10 -- Most Important Section 1983 Cases

Q: What are the most important Section 1983 cases that every officer should know?

A:The 10 Most Important Section 1983 Cases Ever Decided

1. Graham v Connor
This case is the most important because the United States Supreme Court (USSC) here for the first time held that all excessive force cases brought under Section 1983 will be decided under the 4th Amendment -- not common law tort – rules.
The Court further brought all 4th Amendment excessive force cases under Section 1983. Finally, the Court pronounced (non-exclusive) factors that courts and juries must consider when ruling on issues of excessive force. These factors are:
· How serous was the offense?
· Did the suspect pose any immediate threat?
· Was the suspect resisting, evading, escaping, etc.?

2. Groh v Ramierez
This is the first case where the USSC held that an act which would fall under the good faith doctrine for purposes of suppression, amounted to a cause of action under Section 1983. In this case Officer Groh, drafting a search warrant, "failed to identify any of the items that Groh intended to seize." These items were, however, accurately described in the application for the warrant. The USSC refused to grant qualified immunity to Groh commenting that a simple proofreading of the document would have caught the error.

3. Tennessee v Garner
In Garner an officer was dispatched to a burglary in progress. When the officer arrived at the scene of the burglary the officer saw a young man attempting to escape over a fence. The officer shot suspect in the back. The USSC ruled -- for the first time ever -- that deadly force cases must be decided based on 4th Amendment rules – not common law tort rules. The Court further held that in order to be constitutional an officer may use deadly force only if the suspect represents an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others – and that an officer should give a warning if he has time.

4. Haugen v Brousseau
In this case officers had a no-bond warrant for Haugen. When the officers saw Haugen, he jumped in his truck. An officer jumped on the side of the truck and broke the side window with her weapon. She then pointed the weapon at Haugen and told him to stop. Haugen started the truck up. The officer shot Haugen as he started to drive away. The lower courts ruled that qualified immunity was not available to the officer. The USSC held that this case was not like Garner -- and that therefore the officer was entitled to qualified immunity.

5. Mueller v Mena
The question in this case was -- may officers handcuff occupants of a residence they are searching when the officers were aware that a resident had been involved in a drive-by shooting and drugs were being sold out of the residence? At the trial court level the jury awarded punitive damages against the officers. The court of appeals affirmed. The USSC held that the officers did not violate the constitutional rights of the residents -- that summary judgment should be awarded.

6. Saucier v Katz
Many trial courts were not ruling on the issue of qualified immunity immediately. In this case the USSC held that a trial court must very early in the process decide:
a. Did the officers conduct violate the citizen's constitutional rights? If so….
b. Were those rights clearly established at the time of the verdict?
c. Would a reasonable officer know that his conduct was unconstitutional?

7. Monroe v Pape
This is sort of the granddaddy of Section 1983 cases (1961). Officers entered Monroe's home unconstitutionally. The officers required the residents to stand naked while the officers searched the house. The USSC ruled that Monroe had a cause of action as the Court wanted to vindicate the rights of this man whom officers had abused so intentionally.

8. Canton v Harris
This was the first case to say that a department may be liable in a Section 1983 action for failure to adequately train their officers.

9. Deorle v Rutherford
All cases except numbers 9 and 10 are USSC cases. This is a federal court of appeals case. In this case an officer shot a mentally ill man, Deorle. running at the officer with a bottle of fluid in his hand. The gun was a bean bag gun. The bean bag hit Deorle in the eye causing serious permanent damages. The reason this case was chosen for the top 10 was that it is one of the many that hold that one important factor may be that officers must give a warning to a suspect before using force if there is time to so do.

10. Wall v County of Orange
This case should serve as a warning to officers to be very careful before getting in the middle of a civil dispute. In this case a customer, Wall, has an SUV Lexis that he is having washed. During this process, Wall and an employee get into an argument. Wall then stated that he wanted his car returned, but the employee said that he was going to call the police to settle the problem. The police end up siding with the employee and arresting Wall. Wall alleged that he was seriously injured and can never work again. Wall sued under Section 1983. The court of appeals ruled that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity.

If you read the last chapter of my legal source book (Civil Liability) you will find a ton of cases related Section 1983.

Q and A - Running Passengers

Q: Can officers run passengers to see if they have warrants?

A: Yes, a recent United States Supreme Court case held that officers may run passengers if the officers can obtain the passengers identifications voluntarily.

Cases in Illinois, including People v Roberson, have acknowledged this new ruling.

Q & A - Entering residences on false pretence

Question:
Can we knock and enter a residence identifying ourselves as a realtor, or city water department etc. to enter a residence and obtain persons who live in the residence and possibly see if any evidence is in plain view for a future search warrant?

Answer:

No. - Generally the rule on using deception to get in to look around is that you must enter for THEIR purposes e.g. they want to sell you drugs -- you are entering for the purpose they set up - not you.

You can get a guy OUT of the house with any kind of ruse -- it's tougher getting in for obvious reasons.

Some courts will allow you to use a ruse if your only reason is to get JUST INSIDE the DOOR to arrest the guy -- but draw the line at your looking around the house for drugs, etc -- but you are taking a chance.

I like the realtor example (you mentioned above) -- for this reason -- There was an interesting case where the people who lived at a certain house killed brinks armored car people by tasing them (back in the 80's. The suspects had their house up for sale. Officer entered (pretending to want to buy the house -- but were really looking for the taser -- and found it in a closet.

The evidence was admissible.

Search and Seizure: Officers Powers During TERRY Stops / Detentions

Rule: The difference between a detention and an arrest is the amount of restraint imposed by the officers. Generally officers may not impose more than-traffic-stop type restraint during a reasonable suspicion stop. This means that officers may FREEZE the suspect while questioning and investigating.

Generally, handcuffing, using weapons and putting the suspect in the back of vehicle can turn a perfectly reasonable TERRY or traffic stop into an unreasonable seizure.

Never take a suspect to the station on less that probable unless you are very careful --- and you can PROVE that he was coming to the station voluntarily. Remember, defendants on the witness stand will often say that they did not accompany you voluntarily -- so it's up to you to prove it. How's your credibility?

Finally, more murderers are getting off on this one suppression issue than all other combined -- They were in effect restrained in a significant way / in custody / under arrest when the officer got the confession -- and the officer did not have probable cause.

Be careful.