Posted 22 Apr 2014 in Case Notes
In Heien v. North Carolina a police officer pulled over a car because he thought that North Carolina law required that motor vehicles have two working brake lights. It turns out the officer was wrong. SupremeCourt2The North Carolina Court of Appeals concluded that state law requires motor vehicles to only have one working brake light. When the driver and the passenger offered different stories as to where they were going, the officer asked to search the vehicle. Consent was granted and cocaine was found. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether a traffic stop is permissible under the Fourth Amendment when it is based on an officer’s misunderstanding of the law. The North Carolina Supreme Court reasoned

Posted 21 Apr 2014 in Monday Morning Review

As it happens, I'm not finding any published decisions involving local governments from last week. This is a change from recent weeks -- see here and here. Readers: let me know if I've missed anything. [Update: The Sixth Circuit did decide Bradley v. Reno, No. 13-3983 (Apr. 18, 2014). There, a state court found that an officer had probable cause to arrest Bradley, but a jury subsequently acquitted him of the charge. When Bradley later brought a 1983 action against the officer, the question was...

Posted 14 Apr 2014 in Tips and Tactics
At least in the initial drafts, efforts to keep a document concise may stifle the flow of written words.  paperIf this is true, then let the words come freely and deal with wordiness later.  Once the desired content is captured, a writer can turn to making the document shorter and otherwise more pleasing. There are a variety of ways to shorten the draft to meet page limits:
  • Check the margins to be sure the lines extend to the full permitted width and length.  Extend the block quote margins.
  • Create

Posted 14 Apr 2014 in IMLA Briefs
That question arises in Lane v. Franks, No. 13-483, a Supreme Court case in which IMLA and the International Public Management Association have now filed a brief.Supreme Court The Eleventh Circuit ruled that the termination did not trigger First-Amendment scrutiny:
No one disputes that Lane was acting pursuant to his official duties as CITY'S Director when he investigated Schmitz's work activities, spoke with Schmitz and other CACC officials about Schmitz's employment, and ultimately terminated Schmitz's employment. That Lane testified about his official activities pursuant to a subpoena and in the litigation context, in and of itself, does not bring Lane's speech within the protection of the First Amendment.

Posted 14 Apr 2014 in Monday Morning Review
Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:prison Third Circuit
  • Thomas v. Cumberland County, No. 12-3959 (Apr. 11, 2014) (in suit alleging that the County failed to properly train officers to prevent attack by other inmates, vacating the district court's order of summary judgment for the County because a reasonable jury could find that the County acted with deliberate indifference).
Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit

Posted 07 Apr 2014 in Monday Morning Review
Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:SCT stairs Second Circuit Fourth Circuit

Posted 07 Apr 2014 in Commentary
7432008582_3c5d6429f6_nBy Lisa Soronen [We are thrilled to have a guest post from Lisa Soronen, executive director of the State and Local Legal Center.] Last week, the Supreme Court struck down aggregate limits on individual contributions to candidates for federal office, political parties, and political action committees. McCutcheon v. FEC will likely impact the dozen or so states that place aggregate limits on individual campaign contributions to candidates for state office. A cursory glance at state campaign finance laws regulating local elections indicates that states generally have not adopted aggregate caps meaning this decision will not affect contributions to local elections. Federal law allows

Posted 01 Apr 2014 in Case Notes
A County retirement-benefit plan requires an employee to contribute a percentage of his salary to the plan.Retirement But not all employees contribute at the same rate. Instead, an older employee must contribute at a higher rate than a younger employee who enrolls at the same time. Does this violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act? The Fourth Circuit, in EEOC v. Baltimore County, No. 13-1106 (Mar. 31, 2014), said that in the case of Baltimore County's plan, it does. In the court's view,