1 / 14

Leadership Institute Branch Legal Training Section United States Supreme Court 2013 -14

Leadership Institute Branch Legal Training Section United States Supreme Court 2013 -14. Roll Call Training 2014-4. Objective. At the end of this review, the viewer will be able to: Describe the new cases of interest to patrol officers from the 2013-14 term of the U.S. Supreme Court.

clover
Download Presentation

Leadership Institute Branch Legal Training Section United States Supreme Court 2013 -14

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Leadership Institute BranchLegal Training SectionUnited States Supreme Court2013 -14 Roll Call Training 2014-4

  2. Objective At the end of this review, the viewer will be able to: Describe the new cases of interest to patrol officers from the 2013-14 term of the U.S. Supreme Court RCT 2014-4

  3. New Statutes The following summary includes only those new cases of immediate interest to street level law enforcement officers. Additional cases of interest to law enforcement and telecommunications agencies are located on the DOCJT website as indicated at end of this presentation. RCT 2014-4

  4. Stanton v. Sims Is it clearly established that an officer cannot force entry through a locked gate, onto the curtilage, for a minor offense? NO RCT 2014-4

  5. Burrage v. U.S. Is it necessary to prove that the drug trafficked by a defendant is the direct (proximate) cause of the victim’s death, for the purposes of an enhanced penalty under federal law? YES RCT 2014-4

  6. Fernandez v. California May a co-inhabitant of a shared residence give consent if the other party has been removed for unrelated and legitimate reasons by law enforcement? YES RCT 2014-4

  7. Navarette v. California May an anonymous 911 call concerning a traffic siatution be enough (if detailed) to support a traffic stop? YES RCT 2014-4

  8. Tolan v. Cotton For the purposes of a summary judgment (dismissal), must a federal court look at the facts of a particular case in the light most favorable to the plaintiff bringing the lawsuit? YES RCT 2014-4

  9. Plumhoff v. Rickard Is using deadly force (shooting) to end a dangerous, high speed pursuit, Constitutional? Yes www.newsnet5.com RCT 2014-4

  10. Abramski v. U.S. May a firearm be purchased by a “straw” buyer – someone other than the actual buyer? NO RCT 2014-4

  11. Lane v. Franks Is testifying truthfully, under a subpoena, as to matters learned in the course of one’s employment protected speech? YES RCT 2014-4

  12. Riley v. California May an officer search a person’s cell phone incident to arrest, absent any exigent circumstances to do so? No www.nextnewsnetwork.com RCT 2014-4

  13. McCullen v. Coakley May a city create a buffer zone to limit First Amendment protected activities on a public fora (a sidewalk)? No www.usatoday.com RCT 2014-4

  14. Questions? If you have any questions concerning this presentation, please feel free to contact the Legal Training Section in one of the following ways: Website: www.docjt.ky.gov/legal Phone: 859-622-3801 Email: docjt.legal@ky.gov RCT 2014-4

More Related