Out near El Paso, the law enforcement folks are pretty anal about boundaries. Apparently, their “border-protection” mentality applies equally to law enforcement officers from neighboring jurisdictions. Below is a summary from a federal quarrel between officers of El Paso and Hudspeth Counties. While it isn't directly on point for this blog, it is tangentially related to Texas criminal law and it has a little bit of 4th amendment seizure flavor to it.
Short v. West, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals - November 2, 2011
Appellant was an officer in the El Paso Police Department, (EPPD) assigned to a narcotics task force for the 34th Judicial District. The 34th Judicial District includes both El Paso and Hudspeth counties. While conducting a task force related traffic stop in Hudspeth County, appellant encountered a Hudspeth County Sheriff Department (HCSD) deputy who asked him what he was doing there. Appellant identified himself to the satisfaction of the deputy and told her that EPPD task force officers were working in Hudspeth County. The deputy contacted her dispatcher who in turn called Hudspeth County Sheriff West and told him that EPPD officers were performing traffic stops in Hudspeth County. Sheriff West ordered his deputies and find out whether the EPPD officers were, in fact, law enforcement officers. Sheriff West also ordered his deputies to round up the EPPD task force officers and escort them to his office.
A lieutenant in the HCSD located appellant’s supervisor, who produced identification showing him to be an officer with the EPPD and the task force. Appellant’s supervisor ordered him and the other task force members to return to El Paso County. While on the way back to El Paso County, appellant and several task force members were stopped and surrounded by HCSD deputies. The HCSD deputies ordered appellant and the other task force members to go to a nearby HCSD substation. They were told that they would be arrested if they failed to comply. Appellant and the task force members went to the HCSD substation where Sheriff West complained that he had not been notified of the task activities in his county. He then told the task force officers that they were free to leave. Appellant sued Sheriff West under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment.
The court held that Sheriff West was not entitled to qualified immunity. First, the court found that appellant was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes. The HCSD deputies surrounded the task force officers’ vehicles preventing them from returning to El Paso County. In addition, appellant was threatened with arrest if he did not accompany the deputies to the HCSD substation. A reasonable person would not feel free to ignore such a show of force and go about his business.
Second, the court found that such a seizure was objectively unreasonable. Sheriff West ordered the task force officers to be detained and brought to the HCSD substation so he could personally examine them. This was not likely to quickly confirm or dispel his suspicions as to whether or not the task force officers were legitimate law enforcement officers. There were less intrusive ways to accomplish this. Sheriff West could have contacted the EPPD Chief, whom he knew or he could have run the license plates on the task force officers’ vehicles. It was unreasonable to not recognize or pursue these options as alternatives to seizing Short.
. Sumber http://thetrialwarrior.blogspot.com/
Labels
13th Ct. of Appeals
1954 Hague Convention
1st Ct. of Appeals
2nd Ct. of Appeals
4th Amendment
4th Ct. of Appeals
5th Amendment
5th Circuit
5th Ct. of Appeals
6th Ct. of Appeals
Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG)
ancient coins
Archaeological Institute of America (AIA)
Armenia
Arnold Peter Weiss
art loans
attachment action
awards and recognitions
Baltimore coin case
Barry Landau
Belize
Bolivia
Brogan Museum
Bulgaria
Cell Phone
Child Grooming
Child Sexual Assault
China
Civil Rights
Closing Arguments
Confrontation Clause
copper thefts
Crawford
cultural institutions risk management
Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC)
Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA)
cultural property protection
Cyprus
Dallas-Fort Worth Criminal Defense
Depositions
Double Jeopardy
Drugs
Due Process
DWI
Egypt
European Union
forfeiture actions
forgeries
Fraud
Funny Stories
Getty
Greece
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
import protections
Indecency with a child
Indecent Exposure
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)
International Council of Museums (ICOM)
INTERPOL
Iran
Italy
Jason Savedoff
Jury Charge
Jury Deliberations
lainnya
legislation
looted antiquities
mediation
Meledez-Diaz
memorandum of understanding (MoU)
Miranda
museums
NACDL
National Stolen Property Act (NSPA)
Nazi stolen art
Outcry Statement
Peru
prosecutions
Prosecutor Post
provenance
Reasonable Suspicion
receiving stolen property statutes
Red Lists
repatriation
replevin action
Rubin v. Iran
science
Search and Seizure
seizure
space heritage
stolen art
terrorism funding
Terry Stop
Testimonial
Tex.Crim.App.
theft of major artwork
U.S. Supreme Court
UNESCO Convention (1970)
US v. Khouli et al.
War
Warrant
WWII stolen art
Zeyt'un Gospel
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
loading...
Popular Posts
-
Part II . CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com Sumber http://thetrialwarrior.blogspot.com/
-
The Egyptian Museum, Cairo Source: Bs0u10e01, Creative Commons According to an email by the General Director of The Egyptian Museum in Cairo...
-
In a recent case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Federal), the court considered whether police interrogation of a susp...
-
If a criminal defendant takes the stand during trial on the merits and denies culpability, but then, after being convicted, chooses not to t...
-
US v. Khouli et al. asks for a change of venue. The defense argues that personal and financial hardships faced by Alshdaifat, a Michigan ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment