In a democratic society (or a constitutional republic, if you prefer), the requirements of public safety must be carefully balanced with the protection of individual rights. Our law enforcement officers play a critical role in maintaining order, investigating crime and ensuring community well-being, but their actions are limited by legal safeguards designed to prevent government overreach.

Excessive restrictions on law enforcement can hinder agencies’ and officers’ ability to respond effectively to threats, protect victims and ensure officer safety in dangerous situations. On the other hand, when the actions of police officers go beyond constitutional guard rails, they risk undermining public trust and violating fundamental freedoms.

Courts often serve as the final arbiters in determining where this balance should lie. Legal doctrines like qualified immunity, exigent circumstances and the exclusionary rule come about because of ongoing efforts by the courts to figure out how to protect both public safety and civil liberties. As you’ll see in this issue, when questions emerge — ranging from digital privacy concerns to the increased scrutiny of police use of force — policymakers, courts and communities must work together toward solutions that respect both the rule of law and the safety of those who enforce it.

— Ken Wallentine

The Best Laid Plan Went a Little Haywire
In Aden v. City of Bloomington, the 8th Circuit reviewed whether officers used excessive force when they shot an armed suspect after an extended standoff. The case focused on the application of the Graham factors in assessing the reasonableness of the officers’ actions and whether they were entitled to qualified immunity despite the negative outcome of their tactical plan. Read more

Improper Distribution of Nude Images of Arrestee
In Olson v. Grant County, the 9th Circuit addressed whether law enforcement officials violated the Fourth Amendment by improperly accessing and distributing intimate images from an arrestee’s phone. The case examined the boundaries of qualified immunity and whether the unauthorized sharing of private digital content constituted a constitutional violation under clearly established law. Read more

Compelling a Thumbprint to Open Phone Violated Fifth Amendment
In U.S. v. Brown, the D.C. Circuit considered whether compelling a suspect to unlock a cellphone using a thumbprint constituted a violation of the Fifth Amendment. The case, which involved January 6 defendants, looked at whether biometric authentication constitutes a “testimonial act” that implicates self-incrimination protections, distinguishing it from other forms of compelled physical evidence like fingerprints or voice exemplars. Read more

Overdose Death Brings Legal Woes for Jail Employee
In Gillman v. City of Troy, the 6th Circuit examined whether a jail employee violated a pretrial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to provide adequate medical care after the detainee exhibited symptoms of severe opioid withdrawal. The case focused on whether the jailer’s actions constituted deliberate indifference and gross negligence, as well as the applicability of qualified and governmental immunity. Read more

Frisk of a Slumbering Truck Driver Leads to Admissible Evidence
In U.S. v. Hamber, the 8th Circuit debated whether a police officer unlawfully extended a stop when he asked a driver, found asleep at a gas station in a high-crime area, to exit his vehicle and consent to a frisk. The case looked at whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to prolong the encounter under Rodriguez v. U.S. and also whether the search leading to the discovery of a firearm was lawful. Read more

“One Suspicious Thing After Another” in Truck Driver Case
In U.S. v. Aquino Urraca, the 6th Circuit had to determine whether a highway patrolman had reasonable suspicion to extend a regulatory inspection of a commercial truck after observing abnormal and evasive behavior from the driver and co-driver. The case examined whether the totality of circumstances justified a prolonged stop, a canine sniff and a subsequent search under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment. Read more