On October 3, 1974, at around 10:45 pm, Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright of the Memphis Police Department were responding to a “prowler on the inside” call. They made the scene and observed a woman in the house next to the intended home of the call. She was standing on her front porch pointing at the house. She advised that she had heard glass breaking and someone was breaking into the house next door. As Wright showed both officers on the scene on his radio to dispatch, Hymon went to the rear of the house.
In the Michael Brown case, Officer Wilson said Michael Brown attacked him and in his defense fired seven shots which in fact killed Michael Brown. Also, in the Sefolosha case the policeman said that Mr. Sefolosha was not respecting him and refusing to do what he asked, also resisting arrest, so he had to use force. though both of these reasons do seem a little far-fetched. What I don 't understand is just because Michael Brown was disagreeing with this police officer and maybe attacked him, that it gave him the right to shoot Michael Brown. Well I don
Texas, a case that has become controversial on whether or not the death penalty is appropriate for rape victims. Branch was accused of rape when he was found early in the morning driving his car with his pants unzipped, matching the description given by the victim. The victim was a widowed women who lived a few blocks from her son, she lived alone. At the scene of the crime there were a set of footprints matching the shoes that he wore(Branch v. State, Justia Law). Branch was charged with rape from examination of the victim and was later put to death after his eighth amendment claim was denied.
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).
His neighbor appears to be intoxicated and becomes violent when the officer reaches for his handcuffs. He takes a swing at the officer and then attempts his escape. Thirty years prior, the officer would have had the option to draw his weapon and fire or risk a dangerous car chase. Thankfully, he has a Taser gun on his belt. He is able to draw, fire, and apprehend the subject with little effort and no loss of life.
Then the defendants took her to a bridge and threw her off where she drowned. The day following the crime, the police came and arrested Simmons and his friends and charged them with burglary, kidnaping, stealing, and murder in the first degree.” (Roper v Simmons-No. 03–633. Supreme Court of Missouri. 1 Mar. 2005.
An officer in Delaware responding to a call from Jeremy McDole about his attempt in shooting himself the officer fatally shot the wheelchair-bound man and argued that McDole was armed. In the video tape of McDole and the officer McDole didn’t appear to be armed. Another person was fatally shot by an officer in Maryland. The officer was responding to reports of Keith McLeod trying to use fake prescriptions. The officer argued that McLeod was reaching around his back to pull out a gun.
In today’s modern society, many feel that is okay for a police officer can kill a man armed with a harmful weapon at any cost. On many news channels, there are various amounts of articles and reports about a police officer committing this act. Even though a police officer has the right to take action against an armed man, this could be argued in many circumstances. In the 2013, Sammy Yatim was a young adult with a mental illness and was armed with a weapon on a streetcar in Toronto. Yatim was confronted by Const.
The case of Mapp vs. Ohio is a case of illegal search and seizure. It went to the Supreme Court in 1961. It is important to today’s society because it might mean the difference between guilty and innocent. I agree with the Supreme Court because it is illegal to access private property without a warrant or consent. The case lasted until June 19, 1961.
Officer Hymon used his flashlight and could tell that Garner was unarmed. Officer Hymon then told Garner to stop but Garner started to climb the chain link fence. That 's when Officer Hymon shot and killed Garner. A purse and ten dollars were found in Garner 's possession from the house. Hymon admitted in court that Garner appeared to be unarmed.
In the case, the Court did not see sufficient evidence to support the claim that the police violated the respondent’s Fourth Amendment right, prior to entering the resident. There is no evidence of threats or demands made by the police officers, that would insinuate the officer did anything wrong. Because the police in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency, the Court held that the exigency did in fact justify the warrantless search. The officers re-acted upon suspicion and training (Vile, n.d.).
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous. October 31, 1963, while on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, Cleveland Police Department Detective Martin McFadden, age 62, saw two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a street corner at 1276 Euclid Avenue and acting in a way the officer thought was suspicious. Detective McFadden watch these two guys going back and forward doing the same routine about a dozen times staring in the same store window. Next, Detective McFadden saw another third person join in the transaction named Katz exchanging words casing out the store front and Katz walking away.
The judge declares the “Murder in the first degree—premeditated homicide—is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. One man is dead. The life of another is at stake. If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused … then you must declare him not guilty. If, however, there is no reasonable doubt, then he must be found guilty.
I saw the jury sitting at a long table. “Good morning,” I said nervously. “Today I am here to speak with you about the current situation of the suspect’s mental health. The suspect has had violent outbursts, and even believed hallucination. I believe that this man is not well.