Johnathan Baldree

Johnathan Baldree

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ©2019 Article published in the free LLRMI E-Newsletter Link to article online: https://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_updates/2019_nickler_v_county_of_clark/ http://www.llrmi.com | http://www.patctech.com NINTH CIRCUIT DISCUSSES ROUTINE SECURITY SCREENS FOR EMPLOYEE WHO MADE A THREAT April 2019 For duplication & redistribution of this article, please contact Law Enforcement Risk Management Group by phone at 317-386-8325. Law Enforcement Risk Management Group, 700 N. Carr Rd. #595, Plainfield, IN 46168 ________________________________________________________________________________ Article Source: https://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_updates/2019_nickler_v_county_of_clark/ ©2019 Brian S. Batterton, J.D., Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute On October 24, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Nickler v. County of Clark et al.i ,

On October 3, 2018, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. De Castroi , in which the court examined whether a person was seized under the Fourth Amendment when an officer requested that he take his hands out of his pockets. The relevant facts of De Castro are as follows: During the early evening hours of September 22, 2014, an anonymous source called 911 to report a Hispanic male pointing a gun at juveniles outside a vacant flower shop on the 1800 block of North 31st Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The suspect was reportedly wearing a gray shirt, gray pants, and a bucket hat. Philadelphia Police Officer John Mulqueeney, who had been assigned to that area for approximately thirteen years and knew about the drug and firearm activity prevalent there, was dispatched minutes after the call was placed. He stopped his cruiser approximately fifteen to twenty feet from De Castro and his neighbor, who were speaking outside of the vacant flower shop. De Castro was w

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ©2019 Article published in the free LLRMI E-Newsletter Link to article online: https://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_updates/2019_morgan_v_fairfield_county/ http://www.llrmi.com | http://www.patctech.com SIXTH CIRCUIT EXAMINES CURTILAGE AND OFFICER CONDUCT DURING A KNOCK AND TALK April 2019 For duplication & redistribution of this article, please contact Law Enforcement Risk Management Group by phone at 317-386-8325. Law Enforcement Risk Management Group, 700 N. Carr Rd. #595, Plainfield, IN 46168 ________________________________________________________________________________ Article Source: https://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_updates/2019_morgan_v_fairfield_county/ ©2019 Brian S. Batterton, J.D., Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute On September 6, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Morgan v. Fairfield Countyi , in whic

gamma- Aminobutyric acid , or  γ-aminobutyric acid   / ˈ ɡ æ m ə   ə ˈ m iː n oʊ b juː ˈ t ɪr ɪ k   ˈ æ s ɪ d / , or  GABA / ˈ ɡ æ b ə / , is the chief  inhibitory neurotransmitter  in the developmentally mature  mammalian   central nervous system . Its principal role is reducing  neuronal  excitability throughout the  nervous system . In humans, GABA is also directly responsible for the regulation of  muscle tone . [2] gamma -Aminobutyric acid Names Preferred IUPAC name 4-Aminobutanoic acid Identifiers CAS Number 56-12-2   3D model ( JSmol ) Interactive image ChEBI CHEBI:16865   ChEMBL ChEMBL96   ChemSpider 116   DrugBank DB02530   ECHA InfoCard 100.000.235 EC Number 200-258-6 IUPHAR/BPS 1067 KEGG D00058   MeSH gamma-Aminobutyric+Acid PubChem   CID 119 RTECS number ES6300000 UNII 2ACZ6IPC6I   InChI InChI=1S/C4H9NO2/c5-3-1-2-4(6)7/h1-3,5H2,(H,6,7)   Key: BTCSSZJGUNDROE-UHFFFAOYSA-N   InChI