In Civil Rights Suits, Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply

Officers facing lawsuits for unlawful arrest may use evidence that was that was suppressed during the plaintiff’s criminal trial as part of their defense

Lingo v. City of Salem, 2016 BL 204750, 9th Cir., No. 14-35344, 6/27/16.

    The Ninth Circuit, following suit of nearby circuit courts, ruled that evidence suppressed during a criminal proceeding can be used by the police officer in their defense during a civil suit for unlawful arrest. The court stated that the exclusionary rule is not a personal right by noting that it does not apply in grand jury proceedings, civil tax cases, or civil deportation actions. While the officer’s evidence could not be introduced during the criminal proceeding, for the purposes of a civil trial, the officer could still use the evidence to support their probable cause arrest.

   The circuit court also noted that the exclusionary rule already gave the plaintiff a large benefit during her criminal proceedings. By extending the rule to civil cases, the practical effect would be “increase[ing] state actors’ financial exposure in tort cases that happen to involve illegally seized evidence.” 

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Lingo_v_City_of_Salem_No_1435344_2016_BL_204750_9th_Cir_June_27_2.

Police Use of Force to Discern Whether Car Parked Illegally Upheld

A circuit court found that aggressive tactics, such as ripping out and cuffing occupants from a car, does not violate the Fourth Amendment in minor traffic violations

 

United States v. Johnson, 2016 BL 156346, 7th Cir., No. 15-1366, 5/17/16.

    After aggressively pulling out occupants of a car and cuffing them to see whether the car was parked illegally, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit found the police did not act unreasonably.  In the opinion, the court said, “Officers don't need to negate every possible defense before investigating a reasonable suspicion that a traffic offense is being committed.” While the court recognized the aggressive tactics of the officers, they emphasized that excessive force by an officer or racial profiling is better corrected through a civil suit, not a Fourth Amendment claim.

               

   Notably, in the dissenting opinion, one judge criticized that extending the existing pretext for traffic stops to parking infractions should not be allowed. He further noted, that “driving while black” being used for such minor infractions will give police the go-ahead to seize minorities with the hope that it will lead to bigger and better things. 

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/United_States_v_Johnson_No_151366_2016_BL_156346_7th_Cir_May_17_2

  

Blanket Suppression Not Needed Despite Cop's Bad Acts

The remedy for instances where officers seize items not listed in a warrant is suppression of the improperly seized items, not suppression of all of the evidence.

 

United States v. Webster, 2016 BL 840, 10th Cir., No. 15-3027, 1/5/16

    The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that drugs and guns seized during the execution of a valid search warrant do not need to be suppressed merely because some of the officers took advantage of the situation to steal an iPhone, a PlayStation, and other items.

    The court said that the remedy for instances where officers seize items not listed in a warrant is suppression of the improperly seized items, not suppression of all of the evidence. The court went on to say that blanket suppression is only called for in those very rare instances where officers disregard the limitations of a warrant flagrantly, turning the search into a fishing expedition.

    In United States v. Medlin, the court ordered blanket suppression of all of the evidence, not just the illegally seized items, because officers exhibited "flagrant disregard" for the terms of the warrant and took more than 660 items not named in the warrant.

    The court here distinguished indicating that the officers did not use the warrant as a fishing expedition, but instead pocketed only four items. The court pointed to the fact that in Medlin, all of the police were in on it, but here only a couple of the officers were involved in the wrongdoing.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Webster_No_153027_2016_BL_840_10th_Cir_Jan_05_201?1453128513

Peace Officer's Qualified Immunity Reinstated by SCOTUS

Assumption that the police officer acted unreasonably is not 'beyond debate.'

 

Mullenix v. Luna, U.S., No 14-1143, cert. granted, reversed 11/9/15, per curiam

    During a late-night high-speed chase, a police officer shot and killed the driver of the escaping vehicle. The driver was shot four times. The police officer, shooting from an overpass, claimed to have been aiming for the engine block of the speeding vehicle.

    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the officer's actions were not proper because the threat was not great enough to justify deadly force.

    The Supreme Court held that "whatever can be said of the wisdom of Mullenix's choice, this Court's precedents do not place the conclusion that he acted reasonably in these circumstances 'beyond debate.'"