ipl-logo

Summary Of District Of Columbia Vs Wesby

1299 Words6 Pages

District of Columbia v. Wesby
583 U.S.___ (2018)
Procedural HISTORY
The district court said the police officers did not have the right to make an arrest because they were invited to someone and lacked evidence to prove that she didn’t have permission to be there. They said that the police had no knowledge of such. Party goers also had to know they were not supposed to be there. The court of appeals upheld both decisions of the district courts. It made it to the Court of Appeals because of writ of certiorari

Key Issues
If the police made false arrest?
Did the police have probable cause to make an arrest?
If they didn’t have probable cause to make the arrest do they have qualified immunity?

Facts of Case
A late-night party in the District of …show more content…

Wesby was a very interesting case, that was just recently decided. I agree with the judges that for one there was no lawful arrest made and but I strongly disagree that there was not probable cause to make an arrest and lastly, I agree that the officers do have qualified immunity in this case.

The officers made an unlawful arrest because they lacked evidence to charge the party goers with unlawful arrest. This is because the party goers did not know they were not supposed to be there at that time. The Court case states that Peaches was the supposed tenant of the house and gave the party goers permission to be there and that is why they were all there. But, the officers later learned that Peaches had no right to have a party there. This is because they contacted the actual homeowner. But, once officers did, the homeowner informed the officers he was in negotiations with Peaches about renting but noting was yet final. I think after learning this the officers should have charged Peaches with unlawful entry because she knew she didn’t have any rights to the home and had no right to invite others there. Officers should have charged her with 21 counts of unlawful entry because her actions caused the party goers to be there and trash the house. I feel that would have been enough probable cause to arrest her but not anyone else. The party goers should not have been arrested because how are the party goers supposed to know she wasn’t supposed to invite …show more content…

I do believe however that there was probable cause to make an arrest. As I stated earlier the house was trashed and the officers later learned that the party goers had no right to be there. They could have charged them with vandalism or destruction of property. Even though the party goers didn’t know they were not supposed to be there they could have been arrested for disorderly conduct as well. Their music was being played way to loud and was causing a community disturbance. There was also according to the case marijuana being used. I believe that the officers also could have charged the party goers with possession of marijuana and maybe could have done further investigation to see if any other crimes have been committed. The house was totally trashed and more than likely caused the homeowner to spend a large amount of money to fix, repair, or rebuild what very was destructed at the

Show More
Related

  • Carroll Vs Carman Case Study

    321 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the Supreme Court case named Carroll v. Carman, the two police officers Carroll and Roberts were investigating a report that an armed man named Zita had stolen a car and went to hide in the house of Andrew and Karen Carman. When they arrived at the house, they found there was no parking and went down a sidestreet that led to a gravel parking area. They parked in the first spots at the rear of the house. They approached the house and saw a sliding glass door that opened onto a deck. They knocked on the door and Andrew Carman came out and refused to answer their questions about Zita.

    Read More

  • Dc V. Blake Case Study

    406 Words  | 2 Pages

    To: Junior Associate From: Supervising Attorney Re: DC v. Blake Mr. Jonathan Blake, a new client of the firm, recently requested our legal services in a criminal matter. Mr. Blake was recently arrested for possession of a controlled substance by the Metropolitan Police Department. According to Mr. Blake, the facts are as follows: Jessie Smith and his wife are the co-owners of a residence at 3630 16th St. NW, Washington DC, 20015.

    Read More

  • Kuehn V. Pub Zone Case Study

    1378 Words  | 6 Pages

    Making decisions as a judge and as a jury can be difficult. Kuehn v. Pub Zone and Soldano v. O’Daniels both involve attacks in a bar, yet the cases are very different. In Kuehn v. Pub Zone, a gang that frequented the Pub Zone assaulted Kuehn, the plaintiff. The defendant, Kerkoulas, knew of the danger posed by the gangs, Pagans, and banned the use of “colors.” The Pub Zone failed to enforce their ban at the time of the attack.

    Read More

  • The United States V. Place 462 US Case Brief

    510 Words  | 3 Pages

    United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Facts: The respondent Raymond Place was stopped by Federal Agents (DEA) upon his arrival into LaGuardia Airport on a Friday afternoon. The respondent refused to consent to the search of his luggage. His luggage was seized by the agents under suspicion they contained narcotics. The respondent was informed the agents would be obtaining a search warrant from a judge.

    Read More

  • The Case Of Mr. Simon Cordell Barrister Submissions

    5416 Words  | 22 Pages

    It is said that Mr Cordell had been found guilty on the 3rd 4th August 2015, to which he disputes to be correct, evidence of Mr. Simon Cordell Barristers submissions inclusive of the court transcripts of the day of trial. The respondent’s case is that Mr Simon Cordell has been accused of being integrally involved in the organisation of illegal raves in Enfield. Part of the Barrister submissions that represented Simon Cordell, had been that the allegations were that he was involved in the organizing of illegal raves, but the respondent hadn’t adduced evidence, of trespass or evidence of breach of the licensing Act 2003 which is a requirement for proving, that an indoor rave was illegal the Deputy District Judge ruled that the respondent did

    Read More

  • Case Brief Of Tinker V Des Moines

    606 Words  | 3 Pages

    District Court in southern Iowa. The court decided in favor of Des Moines by holding “the constitutionality of the school authorities' action on the ground that it was reasonable in order to prevent disturbance of school discipline,” despite the absence of any finding of substantial interference with the conduct of school activities. (Tedford & Herbeck par. 11) After losing the case, the Tinker family filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

    Read More

  • Office Hymon Case Study

    707 Words  | 3 Pages

    The district court was instructed to consider whether the municipality was entitled to become qualified immunity because its policies had been set in accordance with the state law, and if not, whether the use of deadly force to capture no dangerous fleeing felons was constitutionally permissible. On remand, the district court found that the Tennessee deadly force statute was neither unconstitutional on its face nor as applied. Because the district court found that Garner had not been deprived of any constitutional right, it did not reach the immunity issue. An appeal again was taken to the Sixth Circuit. The appellate court determined that the Tennessee deadly force statute violated the fourth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay: Deputy Murphy's 4th Amendment

    95 Words  | 1 Pages

    The only information the officers were given was shots fired but, Deputy Murphy’s comment “if I have to go in there myself I’ll charge him with anything I can find” Is over the top and unnecessary. He didn’t know what the situation was I think the officers were right to enter his house to make sure anybody in the house is ok. Since the only information they had was shots fired the officers messed up when he took the mans keys to get into his gun safe that’s when his 4th amendment rights were violated.

    Read More

  • Exclusionary Rule In The Weeks V. United States Case

    475 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.

    Read More

  • Wolf V. Colorado Case Brief

    584 Words  | 3 Pages

    The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).

    Read More

  • Ernesto Miranda's Fifth And Sixth Amendment Rights

    696 Words  | 3 Pages

    Arizona was brought to the United States Supreme Court in 1966. The argument for the defense was that Miranda’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and Sixth Amendment Right to legal counsel were evidently violated. The State of Arizona ignored the Escobedo rule, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1964, which states that a statement form a detained suspect in police custody is inadmissible in a court of law unless if the detained suspect is warned of the right to remain silent or the right to an opportunity to have an attorney present, and The Gideon rule, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1963, which permits all suspects of felony the right to an attorney. Inclusive with these violations, Miranda’s confession was obtained illegally and should be dismissed. The verdict was inequitable, and Miranda should receive a new trial.

    Read More

  • Biggie Murder Case Study

    729 Words  | 3 Pages

    The defense side of the case are the people from the records company they would be the people who went to the party that

    Read More

  • Case Study On Mary Sanders Lee

    443 Words  | 2 Pages

    The defendants LAPD and NY Corrections appeal the District Court. Issue: The District Court dismissed all claims against NY Corrections and LAPD for lack of subject matters such as jurisdiction. The district Court also dismissed all federal claims against the defendants. Yes, the court made the right decision to dismiss the claims made by the defendants. Holding:

    Read More

  • Mapp Vs Ohio Case Study

    1872 Words  | 8 Pages

    This ruling is controversial because many say that this will let guilty people go free on police carelessness, while others say that the constitution is not a technicality and allows for the equal prosecution of all

    Read More

  • Ethics Case Of Darling V. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital

    503 Words  | 3 Pages

    At the end of this case, the court had this to

    Read More

More about Summary Of District Of Columbia Vs Wesby

Open Document