May-June 2003 
S.C. v Rothschild
South Carolina Supreme Court
2002

Rothschild was convicted of selling a product to help his customers pass a drug or alcohol test.  Rothschild argued that the product he was convicted of possessing was not otherwise unlawful, and its possession only becomes illegal when one speaks of its use as an adulterant in a commercial setting. He argued that the law under which he was charged is an "indirect ban" on commercial speech that violates the First Amendment.

March-April 2003 
U.S. v Cristobal
U.S. Court of Appeals
Fourth Circuit
June 2002

This case demonstrates that the conduct of the officers while questioning a suspect can be considered when determining if a Miranda waver is valid.  Also discussed is the importance of documentation.  In this case, even though the suspect was on pain-killing drugs, the officers checked with medical staff before questioning and determined that he awake, oriented and able to understand and sign a waver, and be interrogated  

January-February 2003 
S.C. v Grooms
S.C.  Supreme Court
November 2000

Grooms was charged with the murder of her boyfriend and entered a plea of guilty to voluntary manslaughter.  Thereafter she presented evidence in a effort to establish a credible history of domestic violence against her at the hands of the victim.  Law enforcement took two written statements from Grooms in which the issue of domestic violence was not raised.

November-December 2002 Program
S.C. v McGowan
S.C.  Supreme Court
December 17, 2001

McGowan challenged a conviction for assault and battery with intent to kill, and resisting arrest with a deadly weapon. This was the result of a police attempt to arrest him for "public disorderly conduct."  Since McGowan was on his own property the whole time, he claimed that the arrest did not happen in a public place.  The Supreme Court of South Carolina disagreed under the facts presented.

September-October 2002 Program
S.C. v Sims
S.C.  Supreme Court
January 14 2002

Hearsay is admissible in court under certain conditions.  This case examines the "excited utterance" exception.  Other times that hearsay is acceptable are discussed as well.

May/June 2002 Program
S.C. v Laux
S.C.  Supreme Court

The South Carolina Supreme Court found the officers in this case were clearly justified in their belief that Cook had authority to consent to the search holding that it was objectively reasonable for officers to conclude Cooke possessed the requisite apparent authority. 

March/April 2002 Program
Flippo v West Virginia
United States Supreme Court

The search of a murder scene without a warrant caused  problems in court.  There is not a general "murder exception" to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.   The constitutionally mandated rules of search and seizure do not generally change based upon the seriousness of the offense.

In crimes where the suspect may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the scene, officers must be ever mindful of the warrant requirement.

January/February 2002 Program
Illinois v. Charles McArthur
United States Supreme Court
2001

A police officer's two-hour restraint of a home owner while a search warrant was being obtained was reasonable.  The court noted that the officer had probable cause to believe there was evidence of a crime and reasonably believed that the evidence would be destroyed if the resident was left alone. Further, the police made a diligent effort to obtain the warrant as quickly as possible. 

November/December 2001 Program
United States v. Johnson
U.S.  Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit
June 2001

A law enforcement officer must have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a crime is being or has been committed to first stop a vehicle.  This case involved a stop of an out of state vehicle for an equipment violation.  Since the law had a provision to exempt out-of state vehicles, the initial stop was invalid.

September-October  2001 Program
United States v. Jones
U.S.  Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit
March 2001

In order to justify the discretionary investigative stop of a vehicle, the burden is on the police to show the court that the police had a reasonable suspicion - based on facts- that the driver or some other occupant was engaged in some unlawful activity.

July/August 2001 Program
South Carolina v. Forrester
South Carolina Supreme Court
2001

The S.C. Supreme Court in Forrester case simple states that an officer with an unlimited consent to search a container sill does not have the right to do anything he or she wants to do.

However, it is not required that a police officer inform a suspect of his or her right to refuse consent to search.

May/June 2001 Program
United States v. Burton
U.S.  Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit
September 2000

During a search,  an unresponsive subject pulled a gun and attempted to shoot a police officer. With the facts presented, this court ruled that the officer's frisk was unlawful.

The decision holds that when an officer makes an on-the-street approach to a citizen -- and the officer has no reasonable suspicion that the citizen is armed and dangerous -- the officer may not frisk the subject for weapons.

March/April 2001 Program
Indianapolis v. Edmond
U.S. Supreme Court
November 2000

The Supreme Court in Edmond is saying simply that it is not going to extend the exceptions to the suspicion less stop role -- such as sobriety checkpoints-- to include checkpoints for the detection of drugs.  A checkpoint for the primary purpose of detecting drugs (or for discovering evidence of criminal activity), without reasonable suspicion to make the stop, is an unreasonable seizure of the occupants.

January/February 2001 Program
U.S. v. Jones
U.S. Court of Appeals
Fourth Circuit

The court upheld a warrantless entry into a residence based upon a chain of circumstances that lead officers to the home.  Reading the Crime to Court Booklet will provide the details of the case which are too complex to include in  this space.

November/December 2000 Program
U.S. v. Brugal, Adames, DeJesus
U.S. Court of Appeals
Fourth Circuit

This case illustrates that a combination of factors that, taken singly, do not support reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, can, when taken together, justify an investigative detention. 

In similar cases, courts can, and will, differ as to whether the circumstances of a particular case are sufficient to justify investigative detention

September/October 2000 Program
Steven Bond v. U.S.
U.S. Supreme Court

It is reasonable for a passenger on a common carrier to expect that his or her luggage will not be squeezed by anyone in an exploratory manner -- that is, to feel it in a deliberate attempt to discover what might be in it. 

July/August 2000 Program
Florida v. J.L.
U.S. Supreme Court

The court ruled that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun, without more, is not sufficient information to justify the investigative stop of that person.

If there is not enough to show that an anonymous tip is reliable, the fact that the suspect is reported to be carrying a firearm does not change the picture.

June 2000 Program
S.C. v. V.W. Missouri
S.C. Supreme Court

The S.C. Supreme Court makes it plain that it disapproves strongly of an officer making a false statement of fact in an affidavit.  

The exact language is:  ". . . the combination of the police officer's deliberate falsehood and his omission of critical facts pollute the affidavit to the extent that a magistrate could not have found that probable cause existed to issue the search warrant"

May 2000 Program
S.C. v. Blassingame
S.C. Court of Appeals

A single-person show-up identification procedure is not favored by the courts -- but it does not necessarily make identification testimony inadmissible at trial.

This identification, however, must not be tainted by any action of the officers that might sway the mind of the person making the identification.

April 2000 Program
Illinois v. Wardlow
U.S. Supreme Court

Crime to Court presents the Wardlow case as holding that:

1. A suspect's flight upon observing the arrival of police does not -- standing alone -- justify an investigative stop.

2. A suspect's flight upon observing the presence of police can, combined with other circumstances, justify a Terry stop.

3. The fact that an incident of flight occurs in a high-crime area can be sufficient to justify a Terry stop.

4. It is not the law that flight can never be considered as a factor in justifying a Terry stop.

March 2000 Program
Grayson v. Peed
U.S. Court of Appeals
Fourth Circuit

Even though an officer has no constitutional duty to seek out facts as to whether an arrestee should be afforded medical aid before being booked into jail, he should not ignore signs of serious medical needs.  If he is aware of serious medical needs, he should not depend upon the detention center officers to provide it.

February 2000 Program
Norwood v. Bain
U.S. Court of Appeals
Fourth Circuit

A checkpoint was established by police to uncover weapons possibly being carried into a motorcycle rally after information was received that rival gangs might be attending.  Cyclists were questioned and searched prior to being allowed to drive into the rally holding up traffic for hours.

A civil suit followed.  The appeals court held that the checkpoint was legal and it was reasonable for police to do preliminary questioning an observation respecting possible weapon's violations.

However, with no consent to search, no search warrant and no probable cause or reasonable suspicion that weapons might be secreted in the places searched, the court held that  these searches were unlawful.

January 2000 Program
U.S. v. Sakyi
U.S. Court of Appeals
Fourth Circuit

This court ruled that when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that illegal drugs are in the vehicle, the officer may order the occupants out of the vehicle and pat them down briefly for weapons to ensure the officer's safety and the safety of others.