On July 31, 2014, the United States Court of Federal Claims partially denied the Government’s motion to dismiss the claims of a group of federal employees who were declared “excepted” (or “essential”) and who had sued the government on October 24, 2013, on claims that the Government violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA) during the government shutdown. After the denial of the Government’s motion to dismiss, the employees worked with the Government’s representatives and discussed whether and how to give notice to government workers covered by the lawsuit of their right to join the case. The parties reached agreement on October 10, 2014. On October 16, 2014, the claims court Judge entered an Order conditionally certifying the case as a collective action, adopting the parties’ proposed forms of Notice, the proposed Consent to Join form, and the plan for giving notice, with modifications.
Sixth Circuit Urges Law Enforcement & Corrections Officers to Avoid Strip Searching Arrestees in View of Others Absent a Compelling Reason
In 2009, Tynisa Williams was arrested for driving with a suspended license in Cleveland, Ohio. Her license had been suspended for failure to pay a traffic ticket. Ms. Williams made arrangements to pay her fine, but was still processed into detention in the City of Cleveland House of Correction, a local jail facility. Ms. Williams was ordered to strip, shower, and submit to a visual body cavity search and delousing in front of corrections officers and other inmates. During the delousing, officers sprayed delousing solution onto Ms. Williams and into a body cavity.
Mr. Shawn Bealer was subject to similar treatment at the City of Cleveland House of Correction in 2008 and 2009 for driving with a license which had been suspended due to failure to pay a fine. Mr. Bealer further alleged that corrections officers permitted other detainees not only to observe his delousing, but that other detainees were actually allowed to give him the “hose treatment” by spraying his body and genitals with delousing solution.
Supreme Court: Contours of “knock and talk” rule insufficiently defined, qualified immunity may apply
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a Pennsylvania State Police officer who was sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was entitled to qualified immunity from suit for acting on his belief that he could enter onto the curtilage of home to conduct a “knock and talk” at a sliding door leading onto a ground-level deck, and it declined to address whether law enforcement may conduct a “knock and talk” at any home entrance that is open to visitors.
An air marshal for the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) received a text message on his Agency-issued phone in 2003 which caused him to believe that there would no longer be federal air marshals on overnight flights for a period of time. After informing his supervisor and Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Inspector General that he did not believe the decision was in the best interest of public safety, and not receiving any confirmation that the decision would be changed, the employee disclosed the information to an MSNBC reporter. After his identity was confirmed, the Agency removed him from his position for disclosing “Sensitive Security Information” (“SSI”).
Reverend Edward Sherriff was well-known in the Sacramento, CA, area for his charitable works, including running a food bank and two community thrift stores, providing shelter to the homeless, aiding recovering drug addicts, running a hospice center for the terminally ill, distributing toys to children in poverty, and also advocating on behalf of gay rights. On October 20, 1999, nineteen-year old Tio Sessoms and two accomplices burglarized the mobile home of Rev. Sheriff, where Rev. Sheriff lived with his two dogs. One of Mr. Sessoms's accomplices murdered Rev. Sheriff by stabbing and strangling him. Shortly after the crime, Mr. Sessoms fled to his father’s home in Oklahoma. Subsequently, a warrant was issued for the arrest of Mr. Sessoms.
- Explicit Consent Unnecessary for Warrantless Entry in to Arrestee’s Home When Arrestee Requests Re-Entry to Dress or Change Clothes
- Administrative Inspections Conducted As Criminal Raids Are Unconstitutional
- OSC Files First Whistleblower ‘Friend of the Court’ Brief with the Supreme Court
- Third Circuit: Officers Who Observed Firearms Violation Could Enter House and Search for Suspect as Part of a Hot Pursuit; After Finding the Suspect Unarmed, Officers Could Not Continue Warrantless Search for the Firearm