Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Fourth Amendment

Criminal Law

: Fourth Amendment

Unintended v. intended consequences of police officer firing a gun

By John Wesley Hall, Jr.

Unintended consequences of police officer firing a gun explained. Irick v. City of Philadephia, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40496 (E.D. Pa. May 19, 2008): The Fourth Amendment does not protect against unintended consequences of government action. Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596 (1989). In order for a seizure to occur, the detention or taking must be willful; an unknowing act cannot be a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Id. Specifically, in a police shooting, there is no violation of an individual's Fourth Amendment rights if the police officer did not intend the bullet to bring the individual within the officer's control. Troublefield v. City of Harrisburg, 789 F. Supp. 160, 166 (M.D. Pa. 1992). However, a seizure nonetheless occurs "when an unintended person is the object of detention, so long as the means of detention are intentionally applied to that person...continue to full post

Full post as published by Fourth Amendment on May 22, 2008 (boomark / email).