8th Cir.: It's not inherently a violation of the 4th Am to have the St. Louis system of "wanted" notices, in which one officer flags suspects for arrest by others. But watch out, reliance on "wanted" doesn't insulate you from personal liability.
ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/11/2… #N
ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/11/2… #N
If this topic rings a bell for regular readers, I had a long thread about the briefs and arguments back in April.
https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1514675441591730193
As I understand the opinion, the court is saying that you always judge arrests by probable cause, so having one officer say he has PC (by issuing a "wanted") doesn't fundamentally change that: It's neither always PC, nor never PC.
Anf if I'm reading that correctly, that seems correct.
By my eye, the court is taking a fairly narrow view of the arrest authority generally, though: Suggesting, for ex, that the common law misd presence requirement still exists (courts have mostly said it doesn't, I believe).
By my eye, the court is taking a fairly narrow view of the arrest authority generally, though: Suggesting, for ex, that the common law misd presence requirement still exists (courts have mostly said it doesn't, I believe).
The court does find there is no QI against one officer for failure to investigate if there was still PC in light of the old "wanted." You can't rely on an old claim even under collective knowledge doctrine; you have to look into.
Judge Stras files an originalist concurrence, deciding the case on the common law instead of modern Supreme Court precedent (although the two are identical; the modern SCT has adopted the common law rule).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
