Search

Amici curiae are 25 scholars who teach, write, and/or practice in the area of federal Indian law and federal Indian policy. The amici are concerned with the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in United States v. Cooley, 919 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2019). There, the circuit court held that tribal police officers lack authority to briefly detain and search a non-Indian on a public highway running through the Crow Reservation unless it is either “apparent” or “obvious” that the non-Indian has violated state or federal law. Under that theory, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to suppress drug and firearm evidence obtained from a non-Indian defendant by a tribal law enforcement officer. The amici urge the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit decision as the circuit court’s legal theory contradicts the custom, tradition, and policy of policing, as well as the treaties between the United States and indigenous nations. This all demonstrates that the United States has long recognized tribal authority to detain and search non-Indians.

What can explain variation in police abuse across America’s largest enforcement agencies? This question is salient given the media attention and the investigations conducted by the US Department of Justice finding problems of accountability and transparency in America’s policing apparatus. Situating itself on the intersection between public-sector union, special interest group, American politics, and criminology literature, this thesis argues that police union mechanisms, specifically police protections, can explain variation in police abuse. The study employs an originally constructed index of police protections comprised of police union contract and Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights (LEOBR) provisions. First, I find a positive and significant relationship between police abuse and police protections. Second, while local-level ideology has no influence on the ability of unions to create police protections, state-level ideology vis-a-vis state labour laws hinder the ability of unions to create police protections. Finally, to address alternative explanations for continued abuse, I present a paired, qualitative case study of Chicago, IL, and Dallas, TX. I demonstrate the importance of labour histories and minority law enforcement unions for creating better policing outcomes.

Should a law enforcement officer’s mistake of law constitute reasonable suspicion? According to the Supreme Court, the answer is yes. In Heien v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court surprisingly took the minority approach and held that a law enforcement officer’s mistake of law could equate to reasonable suspicion — provided that the mistake was objectively “reasonable”. In doing so, the Court reached the wrong conclusion. This Article is the first to urge state courts to provide greater Fourth Amendment protections than the low standard set forth in Heien. States should not adopt Heien and instead should extend greater individual privacy protections for four reasons. First, Heien left many unanswered questions, so if states adopt the standard set forth under Heien, it is unclear exactly what the state is adopting. These unanswered questions include: what is a reasonable law enforcement officer’s mistake of law and what types of mistakes can be considered in a reasonableness analysis? Second, states should extend greater privacy protections than Heien because of well-established common law principles. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for citizens, so it should not be an excuse for law enforcement officers. Additionally, ambiguity in statutes should not be held against criminal defendants.Third, law enforcement mistake of law violates governmental separation of powers. Law enforcement officers should not exercise the judicial function of interpreting laws or legislative function of creating laws one might reasonably believe exists, but in actuality does not. Fourth, Heien is inconsistent with Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Case law relating to the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule presumes that a mistake of law equates to a constitutional violation, yet Heien says just the opposite — that a mistake of law does not necessarily equal a constitutional violation. Because states should extend greater privacy protections and not allow law enforcement officer’s mistake of law to rise to the level of reasonable suspicion, states should apply the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained during a stop premised on a law enforcement officer’s mistake of law.

Mission To build a human factors platform by specifically addressing human behaviors, predilections and performance, in the context of law enforcement. With a focus on those instances when the human agent has to perform in an environment where the stakes are high, physical danger is imminent, and the future is unpredictable and the information is incomplete (a.k.a., fog and friction). IntentUtilize the human factors platform to stimulate strategic design thinking towards solutions that would best aid and abet the human agent in accomplishing his mission in the field. This human factors platform takes its sustenance from psychobehavioral theories and practice concerning human behavior, particularly when operating under stressors – induced by volatile and ambiguous factors beyond one’s control – that are experienced during law enforcement activities. This discourse paints the psychobehavioral portrait – as it may apply to the law enforcement officer – in four parts:a. Prologue: Ethological antecedents: territoriality, patrol behaviors and law enforcementb. Dialogue: Discussion on psychobehaviors and their design implicationsc. Thought-log: Spurring creative design through cross disciplinary and non-linear thinkingd. Epilogue: When psychobehaviors inform design – design will have no cul de sac.