The Law
1.
Police Employment Issues
a. Gender
b. Overtime
c. Social Media
2.
4th Amendment
a. Searching a Car
b. Searching a Person
c. Searching a House
d. Tips
e. Search Warrant
3.
5th Amendment
a. Attorney
b. Assertion of Miranda
4.
New Laws of Virginia
Employment Issues

Gender (Hiring)

United States of America v. Pennsylvania State Police

Filed 29 July 2014
USA v. Pennsylvania State Police

Physical Fitness Test
“Defendants’ use of the 2003 PFT and
2009 PFT in the screening and
selection of applicants for entry-level
trooper positions with PSP has resulted
in a disparate impact upon female
applicants for those positions.
Defendants’ use of both the 2003 and
the 2009 PFT is not job-related for the
entry-level trooper position, is not
consistent with business necessity, and
does not otherwise meet the
requirements of Section 703(k) of Title
VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k).”





The Test
300 meter run in 1
minute and 17
seconds
13 push-ups
14-inch vertical
leap
1.5 miles in 17
minutes and 48
seconds
USA v. Pennsylvania State Police
2003 – 2008: 94% Male / 71% Female
2009 - 2012: 98% Male / 72% Female
USA v. Pennsylvania State Police
Pass “PFT at the same rate as
male applicants,
approximately 119 additional
women would have been
available for further
consideration for the position
of entry-level trooper,
resulting in approximately 45
additional women being hired
as entry-level troopers.”
Employment Issues

Overtime

Rogers v. Richmond,



851 F. Supp. 2D 983, (E.D. Va. - 2012)

$7,200,000
Winegear v. Norfolk,

Civil Action No. 2:12cv560 (E.D. Va. 2014)

$3,200,000
Hampton Police Department
(2014)
Statutes


Fair Labor Standards Act

Virginia Title 9.1 Chapter 7
Starts at § 9.1-701

29 U.S.C. § 207(k)


29 C.F.R. §§ 553.230(b)-(c)


Requires Overtime at 43
hours per week
Fills gap between Federal
Overtime and Regular Hours

Only applies if 100+ Officers
Exceptions

Executive

Administrative
Basis of Claims

Non-Pay between 40 – 43
hours

Care & Training of Police
Dog
Phone Calls While Off
Duty

Truslow v. Spotsylvania County
Sheriff & Stafford County Sheriff,
783 F. Supp. 274 (1992)

On Call Work

$29,940.62

Arriving Early to Court

Arriving Early to Work

Employment Issues

Social Media

Ferguson

St. Louis County

Oath Keeper Speach
Reasons for Discipline




Government Check Complaint
Complain Mayor not sending
officer to funeral
Derogatory Comments about
Travon Martin
Calling the City Government the
“Lexington Fayette Urban
Communist Government”

Myspace
Reasons for Discipline
Social Media Policy


DO NOT's
Appear to Represent the
Department

DO

Post a Disclaimer





ID Self as Officer and Engage in
Unprofessional Behavior
Show or Describe Work
Post something that adversely
effects morale, safety, discipline, or
public perception
Disclose Sensitive Information
“Posts, comments, images and all
other content on this site are solely
the opinion of the poster and do not
reflect the official or unofficial
positions of the Bartlette County
Sheriff's Department.”
4th Amendment - Standard


1: Reasonable
Expectation of Privacy

2: Trespass

Property
a. Person expects privacy



b. Society sees expectation as
reasonable
Kyllo v. U.S., 533 U.S. 27
(2001)

Thermal Imaging
U.S. v. Jones, 132 S. Ct.
945 (2012)



GPS on Car
Land
Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.
Ct. 1409 (2013)

Area Around House
4th Amendment - Cars

Carroll v. U.S.,
267 U.S.

332 (2009)
132 (1924).


If an officer has probable
cause to believe contraband
is in a car he can search the
car without a warrant
Because a car is mobile
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S.


Cannot search a car solely
because a person arrested in it
Can Search if:

Suspect Unsecured

Reasonable to believe
evidence of the crime the
offender was arrested for
will be found in the car
th
4
Amendment - Person

Subsequent to Arrest

United States v. Robinson,
414 U. S. 218 (1973)



Search of an arrested person
requires no additional
investigation
Packages immediately
associated with the arrestee
can be searched
Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct.
2473 (2014)

Cell Phones Not Searchable



Safety Pat Down (Terry
Pat Down)
Standard: Reasonable Suspicion of
a Weapon
Officer can remove:

An item he believes to be a
weapon

Immediately Apparent
Evidence of a Crime


No Dual Purpose
Grandison v.
Commonwealth, 274 Va.
316 (2007)
4th Amendment – House (Arrest)

Enter Arrestee's House with
Warrant

Misdemeanor or Felony





U.S. v. Spencer, 684 F.2d 220
(1982)
Reasonable Belief:

Suspect's Dwelling

Suspect in the Residence

U.S. v. Magluta, 44 F.3d 1530
(1995)
Cannot Enter 3d Party House

Steagald v. U.S., 451 U.S. 204 (1981)
Follow into House

Hot Pursuit

U.S. v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976)
Protective Sweep During
Arrest

Check places from which a
person could launch an
immediate attack

Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990)
4th Amendment – House (Search)

Permission

2 People Present


1 Arrested


Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S.
103 (2006)
Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct.
1126 (2014)
Cannot Detain if Leaves
Before Search Warrant

Bailey v. U.S., 133 S. Ct. 1031 (2013)
4th Amendment – Anonymous Tips

General Rule


Must be corroborated

Innocent Details

Predict Future Behavior
Navarette v. California, 134
S. Ct. 50 (2014)

Innocent Details

Report of Immediate Criminal
Activity

Dispatch Ability to Track Calls
Search Warrant

Va. Code § 19.2-59


Search Without a Warrant



Malfeasance in Office

Liable to Compensatory &
Punitive Damages

2d Time: Immediately Forfeit
Office
Caselaw limits to searches
without probable cause

Good Faith Exception
United States v. Leon, 468
U.S. 897 (1984)
Once a search warrant is
issued officers can rely on it
without concern over its
validity
Questioning - 5th & 6th Amendments


Don't Have to Worry if
Suspect has a Lawyer

Must Assert the Right

Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S.
778 (2009)
If Asserts Right to Attorney
can come back after 14 days

Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S.
98 (2010)
Miranda Standards

If in custody or deprived of
freedom in a significant way


Can't Question & Requestion

Objective Test



Not Officer's Belief
Not Suspect's Belief
U.S. v. Hashime, 734 F.3d
278 (2013)

Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S.
600 (2004)
Must Unambiguously
Demand Counsel

Davis v. U.S., 512 US 452
(1994)
Questioning

If Statement Excluded

Physical Evidence
developed from the
statement can still be
used


U.S. v. Patane, 542 U.S.
630 (2004)
Can be used to impeach

Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S.
714 (1975)

Silence Before Custody

Can be used in trial

Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct.
928 (2013)