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

  

Obstruction of Justice Statutes Ruled Vague/Overbroad

Obstruction of justice ordinance overbroad, because it criminalizes speech protected by the First Amendment.

 

Scott v. First Judicial Dist. of Nev. , 2015 BL 435411, Nev., No. 67331, 12/31/15

    A car's passenger was arrested under an obstruction of justice ordinance when he repeatedly interrupted the police officer and advised the driver not to perform a field sobriety test. The Supreme Court of Nevada overturned the arrest, and deemed the statute to be overbroad and vague.

    The Carson City code provision made it unlawful "to hinder, obstruct, resist, delay, molest or threaten to hinder, obstruct, resist, delay or molest" police officers or fire officials from performing their official duties. The court ruled that the ordinance is unconstitutionally broad because it criminalizes some speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The court also determined that the ordinance was vague because it did not give police guidelines, which amounted to police having unrestricted discretion to arrest citizens for words or conduct that annoys or offends.

    It is well established that even speech that could otherwise be prohibited will be permitted if the applicable statute is overbroad with respect to other speech.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Scott_v_First_Judicial_Dist_Court_of_Nev_No_67331_2015_BL_435411_?1452881894

Stop Justified When Wide Truck Crossed Fog Line Twice

Crossing the fog line twice, even in a wide truck, is enough reasonably suspicion to justify pulling it over.

 

United States v. Diaz, 2015 BL 289363, 2d Cir., No. 14-2505, 9/8/15

     The Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the district judge's suppression order even though they agreed that many things could reasonably be the cause for a driver's failure to stay in the lane perfectly. The court stated that "a momentary but reasonable loss of attention because of the appearance of an insect in the cab, or a sudden loud sound or flash of light" could cause a momentary crossing over the fog line.

     The court concluded, however, that the test is not whether the driver was actually careless or violated a traffic law, but whether an objectively reasonable police officer could have formed a reasonable suspicion that a violation occurred. Here, the court said, the officer's suspicion that a violation had occurred was reasonable because the truck crossed the fog line twice.

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Diaz_No_142505_2015_BL_289363_2d_Cir_Sept_08_2015