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.
First of all this case shows us the circumstances, when a police officer has the right to detain an individual without a search warrant. R. v. Clayton is an excellent example of how public safety is a police officer’s main priority whether it means for them to be following the common law or violating it to protect the public. The officer received a call from a person who was in high danger of being in an environment where one could get killed. The police officers took no time to get to the location and block every possible exit (in this case 2) outside of the area described by the caller. This goes to show the seriousness of a situation when prohibited handguns a brought in a public place.
Although, the police officers had a search warrant they had it for the wrong unit which placed a family in danger and they raided the wrong unit in the first place but then raided the right one where they find the evidence but because it was found illegally the judge dismissed all of the evidence against Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins because of the Exclusionary Rule. Now the reason the evidence was dismissed was because there was no specific address on the warrant and this means that an officer cannot just search every unit in the multi-family house until they find evidence against the
As well as, a person can’t be a double jeopardy which means if someone commits a crime and the police didn’t find any evidence against them so they can free to go. It indicates that if the court didn’t have any evidence against a criminal and the court let him go and later, police find evidence against criminals so they can’t arrest that person again. It shows to us that the seventh amendment is very important and helpful. The 8th Amendment is important to all people that live in the United States. First, the 8th Amendment helps the courts to take a decision.
As a matter of fact, the psychologists in parole board insisted that they still pose a risk to community since they zealously deny the offenses. According to Rabinowitz, their parole was continuously denied although they spent no time thinking what have happened better in their lives if they confessed to the crimes they never committed. I agree with Rabinowitz that psychologists and social workers had confirmation bias trying to expose Amirault family since the beginning of the first accusation because of the society’s over-cautiousness to the situation. However, in my opinion psychologists and especially families had right to fear more than a little since their children were involved in the matter. To avoid unwanted consequences, questioning techniques should have been highly studied by experts and early history of patients should have been investigated instead before accusing and convicting innocent
( King,18). The quote was made toward to his children not himself it makes the audience think about their own children and how they wouldn 't want what is happening to king children to their own. In the “ Letter from Birmingham Jail” king said “ I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance when
There is a checklist that police officers must abided by so that suicide and homicide will not become a possibility in these domestic cases. Each case is different however, the measure of prevention is the same. The danger in the Case of Nicole Simpson was not seen as a threat by authorities, if it had then she would have been protected. She made numerous of statements about being abused by her husband O.J. Simpson, there were also statements made to her friends but nothing was done.
“Not a tear in his eye,” said Andy… (p.7). This likewise occurred during the interrogation when they at the police station. Every time Arnold was queried, his responses were blunt and short which again shows very little emotions. Therefore, the sheriff concluded that Arnold did not feel anything about Eugie’s death. Furthermore, Arnold’s family had become distant from him, therefore he has no reason to show his emotions anymore, however, when he finally attempted to show and discuss his feeling about the situation to his mother, she rejected him.
Aniyah Brooks COR 100/27252 Professor Buffaloe 14 March 2018 The constitutional rights of the suspects in the central park were denied. The Fifth Amendment clearly states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentable or indictment of a Grand jury… nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Therefore these rights were violated because the five teen suspects were unaware of these rights and were interrogated wrongfully. At the crime scene no evidence was found, which shows that instead of law enforcement following the right principles of the law they took advantage and tried to diminish the suspects. There are certain procedures that must be followed
Imagine if someone you loved was shot by a criminal. Your first instinct would be to call the cops; however, once you do, they say that there is nothing that can be done because there are no laws saying they have to punish the criminal. If there were no laws in society, criminals could get away with crimes repeatedly without any punishment. This is a prime example of why laws are needed in the modern day. The idea of laws in society has been around since King Hammurabi created a set of laws called “Hammurabi’s Code” in 1760 B.C.
“He said I declined to go in with Brendan but I wanted to go in with Brendan, the police wouldn 't let me." Investigators pulled Brendan Dassey out of class to question him without his parent 's permission. In the US if you do anything with a minor you have to have parental/guardian consent you want to take their picture at a public event a waiver has to get signed if you want to quote them and an article about something they 're doing someone has to approve it Brendan does his mother had absolutely no idea some of the questions he was being asked by investigators because they had
Should the right to bears arms be more restricted? The governments primary role is to protect the right 's of law abiding citizens, so when did restricting those rights become so popular? The school and mass shooting 's that have plagued our country over the recent years have been the result of mentally disturbed criminals. The fundamental problem with gun bans or further restricting gun rights is that it only works on citizens that are already predisposed to obey the law in the first place. Criminals, which by definition have no regard for the law, will not be phased by the governments restrictions with such laws.
Point 1. The collected evidence ought to be suppressed for failure to issue Miranda warnings during a custodial interrogation. Miranda warnings were made mandatory by the Supreme Court to protect the citizenry from hard police interrogation tactics and forced confessions. However, when a private citizen becomes the interrogator outside, the application of Miranda becomes less strict. The Constitution does not restrain a private citizen in the same ways as law enforcement, unless that citizen is acting as an agent of law enforcement.
McNeil, while filing numerous Petitions for Contempt, had a substantial justification for filing the same because he was denied visitation with his children, contrary to court Order which had not been modified or challenged by filing a petition timely. The Court notes that, although Mrs. McNeil was not found in contempt of this Court, Mr. McNeil had the right to challenge Mrs. McNeil 's actions. Given the context of the actions within the scope of this case, Mrs. McNeil was not found to be in willful contempt of this Court 's Orders. Mrs. McNeil had other avenues to act in the best interest of the children, i.e., file an emergency motion for modification of visitation; regardless of what she could have done, her actions contributed to the litigation. Thus, the petitions, as with all of Mr. McNeil 's filings after the September 2010 hearing, are found to have substantial justification in fact and law.
Hernandez made the decision to protect his family by fighting back. He stated “I never wanted to hurt anybody, but they put me in a situation and I had to protect my family” (Sharamm, 2016). There are some cases where individuals usually take matters into their own hands making the situation worst. To speak briefly on this matter when Mr. Zimmerman felt that Martin seemed up to no good the first thing he did was call the police, however at some point he decided to take matters into his own hands to confront the young man. Instead, he should have given the operator a description of what Martin looked like, so that way a patrol unit could have scope the scene.