Department of Homeland Security

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers

Office of Chief Counsel

Legal Training Division 

May 2020

THE

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

-INFORMER- A MONTHLY LEGAL RESOURCE AND COMMENTARY FOR LAW 

ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND AGENTS

Get THE INFORMER Free Every Month

Click HERE to Subscribe

THIS IS A SECURE SERVICE. 

You will receive mailings from no one except the FLETC Legal Division.

Welcome to this installment of The Federal Law Enforcement Informer (The Informer). The Legal Training Division of the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Centers’ Office of Chief Counsel is dedicated to providing law enforcement officers with quality, useful 

and timely United States Supreme Court and federal Circuit Courts of Appeals reviews, interesting developments in the law, and 

legal articles written to clarify or highlight various issues. The views expressed in these articles are the opinions of the author and 

do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. The Informer is researched and written by 

members of the Legal Division. All comments, suggestions, or questions regarding The Informer can be directed to the Editor at 

FLETC-LegalTrainingDivision@dhs.gov. You can join The Informer Mailing List, have The Informer delivered directly to you via 

e-mail, and view copies of the current and past editions and articles in The Quarterly Review and The Informer by visiting 

https://www.fletc.gov/legal-resources. 

This edition of The Informer may be cited as 5 INFORMER 20.
2

The Informer – May 2020

Case Summaries

United States Supreme Court

N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. City of N.Y.: Whether the city’s ban on transporting 

a licensed handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits violated the Constitution..........5

Circuit Courts of Appeals

First Circuit

Castagna v. Jean: Whether it was reasonable for police officers to enter the plaintiff’s 

apartment without a warrant to attempt to locate the plaintiff and address a noise complaint...........5

Third Circuit

James v. New Jersey State Police: Whether a police officer was entitled to qualified 

immunity in a lawsuit alleging an excessive use of force after he shot a mentally ill suspect 

who was in violation of a restraining order, was un-medicated, and pointed a firearm at his 

own head..........................................................................................................................................7

Fifth Circuit

Garcia v. Blevins: Whether a police officer was entitled to qualified immunity in a 

lawsuit alleging an excessive use of force after he shot a suspect who ignored repeated

demands to drop his gun...................................................................................................................8

Sixth Circuit

United States v. May-Shaw: Whether the use of a pole camera violated the defendant’s

reasonable expectation of privacy and whether a carport located in the parking lot of the 

defendant’s apartment complex was within the curtilage of the defendant’s apartment...................9

Seventh Circuit

Siler v. City of Kenosha: Whether it was objectively reasonable for a police officer

to shoot a suspect to protect himself and others from the threat posed by the suspect.....................10

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Johnson: Whether the passenger in a motor vehicle was in custody for 

Miranda purposes during a traffic stop while being questioned by a police officer.........................12

United States v. Williams: Whether officers continued detainment of the defendant was lawful

after a frisk revealed no weapon, and whether the officers had probable cause to

search the defendant’s car after smelling marijuana emanating from within..................................12

United States v. Sanders: Whether it was reasonable for police officers to enter a house 

and search for a gun after responding to a 911 domestic disturbance call.......................................13

Franklin v. Franklin County: Whether it was objectively reasonable for two police 

officers to deploy their tasers on or about eight times against a violent, resisting arrestee when

three of the taser deployments occurred while the suspect was handcuffed...................................14
3

Tenth Circuit

United States v. Mayville: Whether a state trooper unreasonably prolonged the duration 

of a traffic stop by running a criminal history check on the defendant through his dispatch 

rather than using the computer in his patrol car...............................................................................15

♦

FLETC Informer Webinar Schedule - June 2020

1. Thermal Imaging - Is it a Search in 2020? (1-hour)

Presented by Mary Mara and Henry W. McGowen, Attorney-Advisors/Senior Instructors, 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, Artesia, New Mexico. 

In Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2002), the Supreme Court held that when law 

enforcement uses thermal imaging to “look” into a house, an area where a person has a 

reasonable expectation of privacy, it constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment and 

therefore requires a search warrant. One of the reasons provided by the Court in its holding 

was the cost and availability of the high-tech equipment needed to conduct thermal 

imaging. In 2020 the availability of thermal imaging technology has increased while the 

cost has decreased. So, is thermal imaging still considered a search in light of the 

technological advancements of the past 20 years? Please join us as we work through these 

issues together.

Wednesday, June 3, 2020: 3 p.m. Eastern / 2 p.m. Central / 1 p.m. Mountain / 

12 p.m. Pacific

To participate in this webinar: https://share.dhs.gov/jun

♦

To Participate in a FLETC Informer Webinar

1. Click on the link to access the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN).

2. If you have a HSIN account, enter with your login and password information.

3. If you do not have a HSIN account, click on the button next to “Enter as a Guest.”

4. Enter your name and click the “Enter” button.

5. You will now be in the meeting room and will be able to participate in the event.

6. Even though meeting rooms may be accessed before an event, there may be times when a meeting 

room is closed while an instructor is setting up the room.

7. If you experience any technical issues / difficulties during the login process, please call our

audio bridge line at (877) 446-3914 and enter participant passcode 232080 when prompted. 

♦
4

Cybercrime & Technical Investigations Training Conference 2020

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) Glynco, Georgia cordially invites you 

to attend the third FLETC CyberCrime & Technical Investigations Training Conference (CYCON2020) September 9-11, 2020. The goal of the conference is to foster education and awareness of 

current threats and innovations which impact how law enforcement investigate cybercrime and 

how they conduct technical investigations. Attendees will experience exhibits, lectures, 

demonstrations, and hands-on labs. Last held in 2018, CYCON-2018 provided 70 break-out 

training sessions from FLETC and industry professionals with 77 representatives from more than 

40 companies in attendance. There is no cost to attendees or vendors for participation; however, 

attendees, vendors, and agencies are responsible for all travel, lodging, and meal costs.

For additional details concerning attendee registration, conducting a presentation for CYCON2020, or conducting a vendor product demonstration please see the FLETC CYCON-2020 website:

https://www.fletc.gov/cybercrime-and-technical-investigations-training-conference

♦

FLETC Office of Chief Counsel Podcast Series

Fundamentals of the Fourth Amendment – A 15-part podcast series that covers the

following Fourth Amendment topics: 

Click Here: https://leolaw.podbean.com/

♦

A Flash History of the Fourth Amendment

What is a Fourth Amendment Search?

What is a Fourth Amendment Seizure?

Fourth Amendment Levels of Suspicion

Stops and Arrests

Plain View Seizures

Mobile Conveyance (Part 1 and Part 2)

Exigent Circumstances

Frisks

Searches Incident to Arrest (SIA)

Consent (Part 1 and Part 2)

Inventories

Inspection Authorities
5

 CASE SUMMARIES

 Circuit Courts of Appeal

United States Supreme Court

N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. City of N.Y., 140 S. Ct. 1525 (2020)

In 2013, three New York City residents who had licenses to possess guns in their homes as well 

as an association of New York gun owners (collectively, the “plaintiffs”), sued the City of New 

York. The plaintiffs challenged a city ordinance banning the transportation of licensed handguns 

outside the city. The plaintiffs argued that the ordinance violated the Second Amendment because 

it banned them from taking their guns to shooting ranges and weekend homes outside the city.

The district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban. After the United States 

Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the city amended its regulations to allow licensed handgun 

owners to transport their guns to, among other places, second homes and shooting ranges outside 

New York City. Similarly, the State of New York enacted legislation, which allows licensed gun 

owners to transport handguns from their home to other places such as second homes, shooting 

ranges, and shooting competitions. 

Subsequently, the city informed the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs’ challenges to the city’s ban 

on transporting guns outside the city limits was moot because of the changes to city and state law. 

Typically, the Supreme Court will not decide a case when there is no longer a “live controversy” 

between the parties that needs to be resolved. However, the plaintiffs urged the Court not to 

dismiss their appeal. The plaintiffs argued, among other things, the case was not moot because

the city’s position was that it can regulate the transport of licensed guns without regard for the 

Second Amendment. The Supreme Court rejected the city’s request to dismiss the case as moot 

and heard oral argument on December 2, 2019. 

On April 27, 2020, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs received the outcome they desired 

from their lawsuit after the State of New York amended its firearm licensing statute when the City 

of New York amended the rule to allow permitted persons to lawfully transport firearms to a 

second home or shooting range outside of the city. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiffs’

request for an injunction concerning the city’s old rule was moot and dismissed the case. The 

Court declined to rule upon whether the plaintiffs could seek damages for the city’s violation of 

their rights under the old rule.

For the court’s opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf

*****

First Circuit

Castagna v. Jean, 955 F.3d 211 (1st Cir. 2020) 

On March 17, 2013, Boston police officers went to an apartment after someone called 911 and 

complained about a loud party occurring nearby. As the officers approached the apartment, they 

heard loud music and saw a young man stumble outside onto the public sidewalk, vomit, and then 
6

stumble back into the apartment. When the officers reached the apartment, the front door was 

open and the officers saw people drinking, some of whom they believed to be underage. The 

officers stood at the open front door and announced their presence. After no one answered, the 

officers entered the apartment to: 1) respond to the noise complaint by finding the owners and 

having them lower the volume of their music and, 2) make sure that any underage drinkers were 

safe, including a young man who had vomited outside the home and returned inside. 

Once inside the apartment, the officers eventually located the hosts of the party, Christopher and 

Gavin Castagna. After a brief verbal and physical altercation, the officers arrested the Castagna 

brothers and several partygoers on a variety of charges. 

The Castagnas sued the officers for, among other things, entering their apartment without a 

warrant, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which ultimately led to their arrests. After the 

district court denied the officers qualified immunity, the officers appealed. The First Circuit Court 

of Appeals reversed the district court and held that the officers did not violate the Fourth 

Amendment because the officers lawfully entered the apartment through the open door under the 

community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement. 

In Cady v. Dombrowski, the Supreme Court recognized that police officers frequently engage in 

“community caretaking functions” that have no relationship to the detection, investigation, or 

acquisition of evidence relating to criminal violations. Since Cady, the community caretaking 

doctrine has become a catch-all for a wide range of responsibilities that police officers must 

discharge in addition to their criminal enforcement duties. Accordingly, in Caniglia v. Strom (see

4 INFORMER 20), the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the community caretaker exception 

applied to officers’ warrantless entry into a house to seize firearms after it was determined that 

the homeowner posed a threat to himself and needed to be transported to a hospital for psychiatric 

evaluation.

Applying the facts of the case to the analysis outlined in Caniglia, this court held that when the 

officers entered the apartment they did so under the lawful community caretaking exception. 

When the officers arrived, they saw a guest, whom appeared underage, leave the apartment, vomit, 

and then reenter the apartment. In addition, the party was loud enough to be heard from the street. 

The court found that the officers needed to get the attention of the homeowner(s) because they

were ultimately responsible for the impact the party had on the neighborhood and because the

presence of underage drinkers posed a safety risk. The court concluded that any expectation of 

privacy in the home was greatly diminished given the open front door, the evident lack of 

supervision by the homeowner(s) of guests trafficking in and out of the home, and the owner’s 

failure to respond to the officers. As a result, the court held that it was reasonable for the officers 

to enter the apartment through the open front door and attempt to locate the homeowner to address 

these issues.

For the court’s opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/19-1677/19-1677-

2020-04-10.pdf?ts=1586550605

*****
7

Third Circuit

James v. N.J. State Police, 957 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 2020) 

Willie Gibbons lived with Angel Stephens. After the two had a domestic argument, Stephens 

obtained a temporary restraining order against Gibbons. The order prohibited Gibbons from 

possessing firearms and from returning to Stephens’ house. 

The day after the court instated the protective order, Gibbons requested a police escort to retrieve 

his possessions from Stephens’ house; the police told him that he needed judicial approval for the 

visit. Instead of obtaining judicial approval, Gibbons drove to Stephens’ house in violation of the 

restraining order. When Gibbons arrived, Stephens was speaking with a friend on the phone. The 

friend called the police to report that Gibbons had violated the restraining order. Gibbons then 

left Stephens’ house after the two had an argument.

When a state trooper arrived, Stephens told him that Gibbons had waved a gun throughout their 

argument. The trooper told Stephens to go to the police barracks and file a complaint against 

Gibbons. Afterward, several troopers, including Trooper Bartelt visited Arlane James, Gibbons’ 

mother. James told the troopers that she did not know where her son was and that he may be off 

his medication. 

While Stephens was driving to the police barracks, she saw Gibbons walking alongside the road 

and called 911, reporting his location. Trooper Bartelt arrived a short time later and as he 

approached Gibbons in his patrol car, he heard Gibbons say, “stay away from me.” Trooper 

Bartelt parked his car and while exiting saw that Gibbons was holding a gun in his left hand and 

pointing it directly at his own head. Trooper Bartelt drew his firearm, stood behind his car door, 

twice told Gibbons to drop his weapon, and ordered him to “come over here.” Gibbons did not 

comply with the commands and may have repeated, “stay away from me.” From a distance of 

seven to fifteen yards, Trooper Bartelt fired two shots, striking Gibbons. Trooper Bartelt shot 

Gibbons within seconds of stopping his car. Another trooper arrived on the scene moments before 

Trooper Bartelt fired the shots. Gibbons later died at the hospital.

Arlane James filed a lawsuit claiming that Trooper Bartelt violated the Fourth Amendment by 

using excessive force against her son. The district court denied Trooper Bartelt qualified 

immunity. Trooper Bartelt appealed.

The Supreme Court has held that a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity as long as their 

conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 

reasonable person would have known.” In addition, the Court explained, that in most cases 

“clearly established means that, at the time of the officer’s conduct, the law was sufficiently clear 

that every reasonable official would understand that what he is doing is unlawful.” Although, in 

rare cases, the Court added that a plaintiff may show that that the right is clearly established if the 

"violation [is] 'obvious.'"

In this case, when Trooper Bartelt approached Gibbons, he knew that Gibbons: (1) had violated 

a restraining order; (2) was in possession of a firearm that he had brandished within the last hour; 

and (3) was reportedly mentally ill and may not have been taking his medication. The Third 

Circuit Court of Appeals held that Trooper Bartelt did not violate a clearly established right 

because at the time of the incident no Supreme Court precedent, Third Circuit precedent, or other 

persuasive case law had held that an officer acting under similar circumstances as Trooper Bartelt 
8

violated the Fourth Amendment. As a result, the court held that Trooper Bartelt was entitled to 

qualified immunity. 

For the court’s opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/18-1432/18-1432-

2020-04-21.pdf?ts=1587488408

*****

Fifth Circuit

Garcia v. Blevins, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13926 (5th Cir. Apr. 30, 2020) 

Philip Garcia went to a restaurant with some friends after attending a sporting event. At the 

restaurant, Garcia’s group got into an argument with another group of patrons. Restaurant 

security, including Officer Blevins, who had a department approved security job at the restaurant, 

asked both groups to leave. The groups left, but another scuffle flared up on the restaurant’s 

outdoor patio. Officer Blevins and another security guard again told the group to leave so the 

group went to the parking lot where they continued to fight.

At this point, Garcia, who had been challenged to a fight, ran to a friend’s parked car and retrieved 

a handgun. A woman told Officer Blevins and the other security guards that someone in the 

parking lot had a gun. Officer Blevins requested police backup over his radio and went to 

investigate.

In the parking lot, Officer Blevins approached Garcia who was holding a t-shirt in his left hand 

and a pistol in his right hand. Officer Blevins drew his firearm and ordered Garcia to drop his 

gun. Garcia ignored Officer Blevins, walked between two parked cars and stopped near the 

restaurant’s dumpster where two other people were standing. It appeared that one of individuals 

was Garcia’s friend. Garcia tried to get the man to take the gun from him. The man refused, 

stepped away from Garcia, and raised his hands. Officer Blevins stated that as the man stepped 

away from Garcia, Garcia raised his gun toward Blevins. In response, Officer Blevins fired 

multiple shots at Garcia, striking him in the chin, chest, and abdomen. Garcia died on the way to 

the hospital. Although there were conflicting witness accounts of the shooting it was undisputed 

that Garcia never dropped his gun as ordered. 

Garcia’s parents (the plaintiffs) sued the Houston Police Department and Officer Blevins under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging an excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The 

district court granted Officer Blevins qualified immunity and dismissed the case. The plaintiffs

appealed.

Government officials, to include police officers are entitled to qualified immunity as long as “their 

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” To determine

whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity the court must decide: 1) whether the facts, as 

alleged by the plaintiff, establish that “the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and, 

2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the incident. The plaintiff has the burden 

of showing that the right was clearly established and, importantly, the court can analyze the

“prongs” in either order or resolve the case by analyzing only of the prongs.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court, which held that the plaintiffs did 

not satisfy the second prong of the test; specifically, that Officer Blevins did not violate a clearly 

established right when he shot Garcia. The Supreme Court has held that to be “clearly 
9

established,” a right must be “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have 

understood that what he is doing violates that right.”

The court in this case considered that Officer Blevins twice broke up fighting in which Garcia was 

involved, and was soon after told that someone in the adjacent parking lot had a gun. When he 

went to investigate, Officer Blevins saw Garcia, with a gun in his hand, walking towards other 

people in the parking lot. When Officer Blevins ordered Garcia to drop the gun, Garcia ignored 

him, ducked between parked vehicles, and tried to give the gun to someone else. The court found 

that, even under the plaintiffs’ version of events, it was undisputed that Garcia refused to drop the 

gun when ordered to do so by Officer Blevins and that Garcia could have quickly pointed it at 

him. The court stated, “[w]e have never required officers to wait until a defendant turns towards 

them, with weapon in hand, before applying deadly force to ensure their safety.” Consequently, 

the court held that Officer Blevins was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate 

clearly established law.

For the court’s opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/19-20494/19-

20494-2020-04-30.pdf?ts=1588267854

*****

Sixth Circuit

United States v. May-Shaw, 955 F.3d 563 (6th Cir. 2020) 

Police officers decided to conduct surveillance on the exterior of Christopher May-Shaw’s 

apartment complex and adjacent parking lot after receiving information that May-Shaw was 

involved in drug trafficking. The parking lot contained covered carports, the interiors of which 

were easily viewable from a vantage point on a public road outside the parking lot. May-Shaw 

often parked his vehicles under a covered carport close to the entrance to his apartment building. 

After the owner of the apartment complex gave officers permission to conduct physical and video 

surveillance of the parking lot, they parked a van in the lot that contained remotely operated 

cameras. Utilizing this method, officers observed May-Shaw loading and unloading drugs and 

cash from his BMW and engaging in what they believed to be drug deals in the parking lot. 

In addition to their surveillance from the van, officers installed a camera on a telephone pole 

located on the public road outside of the parking lot. The camera, which recorded continuously

for 23 days, produced video as well as still shots. The pole-camera footage captured May-Shaw 

engaging in what officers suspected were drug transactions in the parking lot. After witnessing 

these suspected drug transactions, an officer brought his drug-detection dog into the carport and 

conducted a dog-sniff of May-Shaw’s BMW. The dog alerted to the odor of narcotics. 

Based on the surveillance and dog-sniff, officers obtained a warrant to search May-Shaw’s 

apartment and three vehicles, including the BMW. The officers subsequently found drugs, cash, 

drug paraphernalia, and drug packaging material. The government charged May-Shaw with 

several drug-related offenses. 

May-Shaw filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from his apartment and vehicles. MayShaw claimed that the pole camera surveillance constituted an unreasonable warrantless search in 

violation of the Fourth Amendment. 
10

The court disagreed, holding that May-Shaw had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the 

carport; therefore, the use of the pole camera did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search. The 

court noted that Sixth Circuit case law has consistently held that the type of warrantless 

surveillance conducted by the officers in this case does not violate the Fourth Amendment. For 

example, in U.S. v. Houston, the court held that warrantless video surveillance of the defendant’s 

front porch, which was unquestionably within the curtilage of his home, did not violate his 

reasonable expectation of privacy because the camera “captured only views that were plainly 

visible to any member of the public who drove down the roads bordering his home.” 

Similarly, in this case, the court found that the footage from the pole camera only revealed what 

May-Shaw did in a public space, i.e. the parking lot. The camera captured images of May-Shaw 

moving items from his car to his apartment and conducting other activities that were possible for 

any member of the public to have observed. Consequently, the court held that the use of the pole 

camera for 23 days did not violate May-Shaw’s Fourth Amendment rights. 

Next, May-Shaw claimed that the use of the drug-detecting dog to sniff his BMW while it was 

parked in the carport constituted an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment because the 

carport was within the curtilage of his apartment. 

The court recognized, “it is well-settled that the warrantless search of a home’s curtilage with a 

drug-sniffing dog violate[s] the Fourth Amendment.” To determine if an area falls within the 

curtilage of a home, the court was required to examine four factors: 1) the proximity of the area 

to the home, 2) whether the area is within an enclosure around the home, 3) how that area is used, 

and 4) what the owner has done to protect the area from observation from passersby.

In this case, the court found that the proximity of the carport to May-Shaw’s apartment and the 

fact that the carport was not located within an enclosure that surrounded his apartment weighed 

against May-Shaw. Second, although May-Shaw regularly parked his car in the carport, he did 

not have any legal right to exclude others from it. Finally, because officers could see into the 

carport from the pole camera, it was apparent that May-Shaw did not take significant steps to 

protect the area from observation. Based on these facts, the court held that the carport was not 

within the curtilage of May-Shaw’s apartment; therefore, the drug dog sniff did not constitute a 

search under the Fourth Amendment.

For the court’s opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/18-1821/18-1821-

2020-04-08.pdf?ts=1586374215

*****

Seventh Circuit

Siler v. City of Kenosha, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13750 (7th Cir. Apr. 29, 2020) 

Officer Torres was on patrol when he received a call from dispatch requesting assistance 

apprehending Aaron Siler. The dispatcher told Officer Torres that there was a warrant for Siler 

for “strangulation and suffocation,” that Siler had taken a vehicle without consent, and that Siler 

was known to have violent tendencies. When Officer Torres saw Siler driving through an 

intersection, he activated his emergency lights and sirens and attempted to stop him. Siler did not 

stop but instead led Officer Torres on a pursuit which lasted approximately three minutes and 

ended when Siler crashed his car. At this point, Siler fled on foot and Officer Torres exited his 

patrol car and chased him. At the time, Officer Torres was forty-two years old, stood five feet 
11

and seven inches tall, and weighed 155 pounds while Siler was twenty-six years old, six feet and 

four inches tall, and weighed 243 pounds. Siler ignored Officer Torres’ commands to “stop” and 

“get on the ground” and ran into a garage of an auto body repair shop.

When Officer Torres entered the garage he encountered two men, one of whom indicated that 

Siler had entered a back room. When Officer Torres ordered Siler to come out, Siler exited the 

back room and attempted to flee through the open garage door, however Officer Torres, who was 

standing in the open doorway, blocked the exit. At this point Siler moved to the passenger side 

of an SUV that was parked in the garage while Officer Torres moved to the driver side of the SUV 

and ordered Siler to get on the ground. After Siler refused, the men began to move back and forth 

in a “cat and mouse” fashion along their respective sides of the SUV. Throughout this “cat and 

mouse” exchange, Siler had an unobstructed path to his left that led to the open garage door.

By this time, Officer Torres had his pistol pointed at Siler and ordered him to the ground. Siler 

refused, responding, “fuck you,” “no,” and “shoot me.” Siler then bent over and when he stood 

up, Officer Torres saw a black cylindrical object pressed against Siler’s forearm. Again, Officer 

Torres yelled at Siler to “drop it” and “get to the ground,” to which Siler again responded as he 

had previously. Siler bent down a second time and made a grabbing motion. 

While still on the passenger side of the SUV, Siler made a step to his right, toward Officer Torres, 

which was in the opposite direction of the open garage door. At this time, there were 

approximately ten to twelve feet between the men and Officer Torres could not see Siler’s hands. 

When Siler stepped to the right, Officer Torres fired seven shots at Siler, striking him six times in 

the upper torso. Siler died from gunshot wounds. Approximately thirty seconds elapsed from the 

time Siler exited the back room in the garage until Officer Torres shot him. 

Siler’s daughter (plaintiff) sued Officer Torres claiming that his use of deadly force against Silver 

was unreasonable. The district court granted Officer Torres qualified immunity and the plaintiff 

appealed.

Citing Tennessee v. Garner, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that, at the time of the 

shooting, “if a reasonable officer in Officer Torres’ shoes would have believed that Mr. Siler 

posed an imminent threat of serious physical harm, or that he had committed a crime involving 

serious physical harm and was about to escape, the Officer’s use of force was reasonable.” 

In this case, when Officer Torres shot Siler it was undisputed that: 1) Siler, ignoring the possibility 

of escape through the open garage door, had belligerently defied Officer Torres’ command by 

daring Officer Torres to shoot him; 2) Siler stepped towards Officer Torres’ while holding 

something in his hand, 3) Siler was a young man, significantly larger than Officer Torres,who had 

a reputation for physical violence, 4) Siler refused every opportunity to surrender during the chase, 

and critically, had decided to change the status quo of a standoff, and, 5) despite the fact that 

Officer Torres had his pistol in his hand, Siler became aggressive and Officer Torres reasonably 

believed he was at risk of being overcome and disarmed. Based on these facts, the court found 

that it was reasonable for Officer Torres to use deadly force against Siler to protect himself and 

the other individuals in the garage from the threat posed by Siler. 

For the court’s opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/19-1855/19-1855-

2020-04-29.pdf?ts=1588190493

*****
12

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Johnson, 954 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir. 2020) 

A police officer stopped a van for following too closely to another vehicle. Sarkis Labachyan was 

driving and Sherman Johnson was in the front passenger seat. After Labachyan gave the officer 

his driver’s license and the rental agreement for the van, the officer went back to the his patrol car

and conducted a record check. After the officer asked Labachyan where the men were heading, 

Labachyan told him that he and Johnson were going to Illinois to visit Johnson’s Aunt Dorothy, 

who had recently been discharged from the hospital. The officer then returned to the van to speak 

to Johnson, whose name was on the rental agreement. Johnson told the officer that he and 

Labachyan planned to stop briefly in Lincoln, Nebraska and then travel to Illinois to visit his Aunt 

Jeanette. 

Becoming suspicious, the officer returned to his patrol car to complete his record check. During 

the record check, the officer discovered that two months prior, Labachyan and Johnson had been 

stopped in a vehicle in Nebraska. During that stop, an officer had searched their vehicle and 

discovered a small amount of marijuana and $19,000 cash. 

After learning of this incident, the officer received consent from Johnson to search the van. The 

officer searched the van and discovered 6,000 grams of cocaine in the spare tire attached to the 

underside of the van. The government charged Johnson and Labachyan with possession with 

intent to distribute cocaine and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. 

Labachyan filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to the officer while seated in the 

patrol car during the officer’s record check. Labachyan claimed that his statements were 

inadmissible because the officer did not first provide him with Miranda warnings. 

An officer is required to provide Miranda warnings whenever a person is subjected to custodial 

interrogation. Although a person is seized under the Fourth Amendment during a traffic stop, he 

is not in custody for Miranda purposes unless he is either formally arrested or “his freedom of 

action ha[s] been curtailed to a degree associated with [a] formal arrest,” sometimes called the 

“arrest test.” 

In this case, the court held that Miranda warnings were not required because Labachyan was not 

in custody when questioned by the officer in the patrol car. The court found that the circumstances 

surrounding the questioning did not resemble a formal arrest as the officer asked Labachyan a 

modest number of questions and never indicated that Labachyan’s detention would be anything 

other than temporary. The court added that it did not matter if the motivation behind the officer’s 

questions was to discover evidence of criminal activity as a police officer’s “unarticulated plan” 

has no bearing on whether a suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes.

For the court’s opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/18-2929/18-2929-

2020-04-02.pdf?ts=1585841421

*****

United States v. Williams, 955 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 2020) 

Police officers were dispatched to a Wal-Mart parking lot to assist with a “road rage” incident. 

Upon arrival, officers met with a woman who told the officers that another driver, later identified 

as Jaminen Williams cut off her vehicle, then exited his vehicle, hit her driver’s side window, and 
13

threatened to shoot her. The woman described Williams’ physical appearance and provided the 

officers with the make, color, and license plate of his car. 

Based on these descriptions, the officers located Williams near his vehicle outside the Wal-Mart. 

The officers decided to frisk Williams. Williams admitted to telling the woman that he had a gun 

and threatening her, but he denied having a firearm. The frisk did not reveal a weapon. Afterward, 

one of the officers asked Williams for his identification. Williams told the officer that his 

identification was in his car. When Williams opened the driver’s side door, the officer smelled 

an odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle. After the officer told Williams about the smell 

of marijuana and that he was going to search the car, Williams ran from the parking lot. The 

officers searched Williams’ car and found a handgun and more than 400 grams of marijuana.

The government charged Williams with drug and firearms-related offenses. Williams conceded 

that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain him initially. However, Williams claimed that 

the officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they continued to detain him after they frisked 

him and determined that he did not possess a firearm and then by searching his vehicle. 

The court disagreed. First, the court held that the officers lawfully continued their investigation 

after they determined Williams was not carrying a gun because during the frisk Williams admitted 

to threatening to shoot a woman. The court found that the officers had reasonable suspicion that 

Williams had committed harassment in violation of Iowa law. Consequently, the court concluded 

that the officer’s request for Williams’ identification was a reasonable and lawful extension of the 

initial investigatory stop. 

Next, the court held that the officers had probable cause to search Williams’ car because one of 

the officers smelled marijuana when Williams opened the car door. During a lawful investigatory 

stop, officers may search a vehicle when they develop probable cause that it contains contraband 

or evidence of criminal activity. The court added, “we have repeatedly held that the odor of 

marijuana provides probable cause for a warrantless search of a vehicle under the automobile 

exception.” 

For the court’s opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/19-1827/19-1827-

2020-04-09.pdf?ts=1586446223

*****

United States v. Sanders, 956 F.3d 534 (8th Cir. 2020) 

An eleven-year old girl, N.R., called her grandmother and said that her mother, Karina LaFrancois 

and her mother’s boyfriend, Kenny Sanders were “fighting really bad” and that “they needed 

someone to come.” The grandmother called 911, reported what N.R. had told her and told the 

operator that two additional minor children, ages seven and one, were inside the residence.

When officers arrived at LaFrancois’ house, one of them saw N.R. “acting excited” and gesturing 

through an upstairs window. The officers knocked on the front door and LaFrancois came outside 

to talk to them. LaFrancois told the officers that everything was okay, even though LaFrancois 

was visibly upset and had red marks on her face and neck. The officers told LaFrancois that they 

needed to talk to Sanders. LaFrancois offered to have Sanders speak with the officers outside. 

The officer initially agreed to allow LaFrancois to go inside and get Sanders; however, when she 

opened the door, the officers heard crying inside. At that point, the officers decided to enter the 

house to make sure that everyone was safe. 
14

Upon entering, the officers saw Sanders and LaFrancois standing just inside the doorway and a 

crying infant located in a nearby playpen. One of the officers went upstairs to check on N.R. 

while another officer directed Sanders to sit on the couch. N.R. told the officer that during the 

fight with Sanders, she heard her mother yelling, “Put the gun down!” N.R. told the officer that 

the gun might be in a specific drawer downstairs. The officer checked the drawer but he did not 

find a gun. The officer then spoke with LaFrancois who stated that the gun might be “in the 

couch.” The officer asked Sanders to get off the couch and discovered a handgun in the couch 

cushions.

The government charged Sanders with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 922(g)(9), and 924(a)(2). Sanders argued that the officers’ warrantless 

entry into the house and the search of his couch for the gun violated the Fourth Amendment.

The court disagreed. The court held that the warrantless entry into the house was reasonable under 

the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Since 

2006, the Eighth Circuit has recognized that the community caretaking exception allows a police 

officer to "enter a residence without a warrant as a community caretaker where the officer has a 

reasonable belief that an emergency exists requiring his or her attention."

In this case, the court held that based on the facts known to the officers, to include: 1) the 

information from the 911 call, 2) the officers’ observations when they arrived, and 3) the 

information provided by N.R. and LaFrancois, it was reasonable for the officers to believe that an 

emergency situation existed that required their immediate attention by entering LaFrancois' home 

to ensure that no one inside was injured or in danger. 

The court further held that exigent circumstances justified the officer’s search to locate and secure 

the gun because: 1) “domestic disturbances are highly volatile and involve large risks,” 2) the 

officer had an objectively reasonable belief that a gun was inside the house, and 3) the officer

limited his search to areas where the gun might have been placed. 

For the court’s opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/19-1497/19-1497-

2020-04-14.pdf?ts=1586878220

*****

Franklin v. Franklin County, 956 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir.) 

A police officer arrested Cody Franklin after receiving a call that Franklin walking along a road 

acting “bizarrely,” and “swinging a stick like a sword.” A few hours later, an officer decided to 

relocate Franklin in confinement from the general population pod to an isolation pod because 

Franklin was fighting with other inmates and appeared to be under the influence of drugs. When 

the officer opened the door to the pod and asked Franklin to go with him, Franklin refused, 

dropped into a combative stance, and challenged the officer to fight him. The officer declined to 

fight Franklin who then threw things at the officer and tried to pull him into the pod. 

Officer Nathan Griffith, who had arrived to help move Franklin, intervened and wrestled Franklin 

to the floor. After Franklin kicked Officer Griffith off and stood up. Officer Griffith shot Franklin 

with his taser and Franklin fell to the floor. Officer Griffith ordered Franklin to remain on the 

floor but Franklin attempted to stand up. Officer Griffith shot Franklin with his taser again, and 

possibly three more times, but it ultimately had no effect upon Franklin who continued toward the
15

officers. The officers wrestled Franklin to the ground, handcuffed him, and moved him to the 

isolation cell. 

At this point, Sergeant Joseph Griffith arrived and the three officers tried to remove Franklin’s 

handcuffs before securing him in the isolation cell. With Franklin lying face down on the floor, 

the three officers used their weight to subdue him, but he continued to struggle. Sgt. Griffith

warned Franklin that he would use his taser if Franklin continued to resist. After Franklin ignored 

this warning and continued to resist, Sgt. Griffith tased Franklin on drive-stun mode two or three 

more times until Franklin stopped fighting and relaxed his arms, thereby allowing the officers to 

remove his handcuffs. A few minutes later, the officers called for an ambulance and Franklin was 

transported to a local hospital where he died. The medical examiner found that Franklin’s cause 

of death was “methamphetamine intoxication, exertion, struggle, restraint, and multiple electromuscular disruption device applications.”

Franklin’s father sued Officer Griffith and Sergeant Griffith (the Griffiths), claiming, among other 

things, that they used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment against his son. After 

the district court held that the Griffiths were not entitled to qualified immunity, they appealed.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Griffiths acted reasonably under the 

circumstances, even if they tased Franklin on or about eight times. As a result, the court concluded 

that the Griffiths did not violate Franklins’ right to be free from excessive force; therefore, they 

were entitled to qualified immunity. The court cited several case holdings which stated it was 

reasonable to tase violent, resisting arrestees multiple times; citing, one case with five taser 

deployments and another case with up to ten taser deployments. The court found that the Griffiths

were justified in their use of force against Franklin because Franklin’s aggression did not stop 

until after the final shot of the taser. 

The court added that the fact that Franklin was tased three times in drive-stun mode while 

handcuffed was reasonable, as Franklin continued to resist the officers while he was in handcuffs. 

The court recognized that a handcuffed suspect can still pose a danger to the officers and that it 

has “allowed the use of tasers on detainees in handcuffs in appropriate circumstances.” 

Finally, the court found that the Griffiths’ decision to remove Franklin’s handcuffs before securing 

him in the isolation cell was reasonable. First, the Griffiths testified that they wanted Franklin to 

be able to move about the cell freely, as they were concerned that if Franklin remained handcuffed 

in his drug-influenced state he may have fallen while cuffed and possibly injure his arms, wrists 

or head. Next, the court found that it was reasonable for the Griffiths to be concerned that Franklin 

might be able to maneuver his hands and body in such a way as to use the cuffs as a weapon when 

someone entered the cell. 

For the court’s opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/19-1854/19-1854-

2020-04-24.pdf?ts=1587742236

*****

Tenth Circuit

United States v. Mayville, 955 F.3d 825 (10th Cir. 2020) 

At approximately 1:45 a.m., a Utah Highway Patrol Trooper stopped a car for speeding. As the 

trooper approached the car, he saw the driver, John Mayville, hunched over in the vehicle as if he 
16

was trying to hide something. When the trooper spoke to him, Mayville told the trooper that he 

was traveling from Arizona to Colorado. The trooper asked for Mayville’s license, registration, 

and proof of insurance but the only document Mayville could produce was his out-of-state driver’s 

license. 

Seven minutes after the stop began, the trooper returned to his patrol car to fill out his paperwork 

for the stop. The trooper radioed dispatch to run a records check on Mayville, which consisted of 

two components: first, the trooper asked dispatch to run Mayville’s license and check for warrants; 

second, the trooper requested Mayville’s criminal history through the Interstate Identification 

Index, commonly referred to as a Triple I check. After contacting dispatch but before dispatch 

returned the results, the trooper requested a drug sniffing dog. The trooper then continued to work 

on the citation and attempted to determine to whom the vehicle belonged.

When another trooper arrived with a drug sniffing dog, they conducted a free-air sniff around 

Mayville’s car. At approximately 2:05 a.m., the dog alerted to the odor of narcotics in the vehicle. 

Less than 30 seconds later, dispatch responded to the trooper’s request with information indicating 

that Mayville had a criminal record. Approximately 19 minutes elapsed from the trooper’s initial 

contact with Mayville to the alert by the drug sniffing dog. 

The troopers searched Mayville’s car and found methamphetamine, heroin, and two guns, one 

equipped with a silencer. The officers arrested Mayville, who was subsequently charged by the 

government with drug and firearm-related offenses.

Mayville claimed that the trooper’s decision to run a Triple I criminal history check through 

dispatch was not reasonably related to the reason for the traffic stop; therefore, the trooper 

unreasonably extended the duration of the stop while he waited for the return from dispatch.

The court disagreed. First, the court noted that an officer’s authority to detain a driver “ends when 

tasks tied to the traffic infraction are – or reasonably should have been – completed,” unless

“separate reasonable suspicion exists to justify further investigation.” Second, the court 

recognized that one of the tasks tied to a traffic stop is checking the driver’s criminal history, so 

long as the check does not unreasonably prolong the stop. As a result, the court held that the 

trooper was entitled to inquire into Mayville’s criminal history during the traffic stop.

Mayville further claimed that the trooper’s decision to request a Triple I check through dispatch 

rather than conduct the criminal history check on the computer in his patrol car was unreasonable.

Again, the court disagreed. The court concluded that even if the Triple I check prolonged the 

duration of the stop it was reasonable because: 1) the computer in the trooper’s patrol car would 

have provided limited information with respect to out-of-state drivers such as Mayville, 2) the 

trooper developed concerns for his safety based on Mayville’s apparent attempt to hide something 

as the trooper approached his car, and 3) Mayville’s inability to provide registration paperwork 

for the vehicle. Given these circumstances, the court held that the trooper’s decision to run a 

Triple I check through dispatch as opposed to limiting his records check to the computer in his 

patrol car did not unreasonably prolong the stop. 

For the court’s opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/19-4008/19-4008-

2020-04-07.pdf?ts=1586277064

*****