The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently issued an opinion in Lewis v. Delgado, 163 F.4th 926 (5th Cir. 2026), a case that considers when officers are entitled to qualified immunity for briefly handcuffing a person with a medical condition during a high-risk stop. The Fifth Circuit held that, even if the officers knew about Lewis’s condition beforehand, their actions did not violate clearly established law under the circumstances.​​​​​

​

​

In a recent case from the Fourth Circuit, the Court examined United States v. Lowers, a case that highlights privacy in the digital age and reiterates that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in files they store in their private cloud accounts.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently decided Byers v. Painter, 173 F.4th 155 (4th Cir. 2026), a case examining the limits of qualified immunity when an officer uses deadly force against an armed but nonthreatening suspect who is fleeing. The court held that, at the time of the encounter, clearly established law prohibited the use of deadly force against an armed suspect who did not pose an immediate threat.

​

​

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently addressed the limits of advanced pain-compliance techniques in Franke v. Janes, 168 F.4th 797 (6th Cir. 2026). This case arose from an officer’s use of a half-nelson and wrist torque technique while escorting a handcuffed man to a police vehicle, where inconclusive body-camera footage left unresolved whether the man was actively resisting.

​

​

​

​

In United States v. Thorne, No. 23-3054 (D.C. Cir. 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit highlighted Fourth Amendment considerations that arise when officers use GPS-ping data and cell-site simulator technology to locate a wanted suspect, as well as the application of the good-faith exception when officers reasonably rely on a warrant in good faith.

​

​​​​

​

​

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently issued a decision in United States v. Rowell, holding that a missing minor’s recent digital footprint, combined with evidence that the child may be endangered, may justify warrantless entry under the emergency-aid doctrine.

​

​​

​

​

​

​

​