III. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGEMENT BECAUSE EVIDENCE EXISTS TO SHOW THAT OFFICER PRATCHETT USED EXCESSIVE FORCE AGAINST MR. HUMPHREY
The second element a plaintiff must establish to bring a successful §1983 claim is that the Defendant violated a Constitutional right. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Constitutional right in question under the §1983 claim is the protection from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment by means of excessive force. Id. In determining whether excessive force was used to conduct an unreasonable seizure, the acts of an objectively reasonable officer in the situation in question must be examined. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 1872 (1989). Again, while there is no dispute that
…show more content…
Waterman v. Batton, 393 F 3.d 471, 478. (4th Cir. 2005). One of the defendant officers observed the plaintiff traveling 51 miles per hour in a 25 mile per hour zone and immediately initiated pursuit. The officer in pursuit radioed his fellow officers at a toll plaza ahead of the suspect car, and the officers at the toll plaza prepared “stop sticks” at the tollbooth. Following the communication between the officers, the pursuing car radioed that the plaintiff “tried to run [him] off the road,” and moments later the pursuing car and plaintiff reached the toll area. When the plaintiff approached the officers stationed at the toll plaza, he slowed down and then “lurched” forward. Although none of the officers at the toll area were in the direct way of the plaintiff’s car, the officers perceived the “lurching” as an attempt to injure them and the officers fired into the car as a result of the perceived threat, and continued to do so as the car passed through the toll plaza. The court held that the shots fired as the car approached the toll booth did not constitute excessive violence because the plaintiff did not stop despite the warnings of officers with their guns drawn, and because the an objectively reasonable officer in …show more content…
Humphrey’s claim of excessive force, so this factor also favors Humphrey. Like Jones, where the plaintiff voluntarily entered a police station and the defendant officer did not even assert that the plaintiff resisted or fled an arrest, Humphrey was not under arrest and Pratchett did not attempt to arrest him, announce that he was under arrest, or claim that Humphrey fought back. This factor also favors Humphrey. Based on the Graham standard, which weighs the totality of the circumstances, each of the three factors favor Humphrey, therefore Pratchett’s use of force was excessive under the objective reasonableness standard when he used his handcuffs to attack
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
There is no dispute that Mr.Nanokeesic showed an attempt to prevent the police from finding the weapon, when he ran from the police and discarded his backpack. The backpack was found by the police and searched, without a warrant.
On September 4, 1958, Dollree Mapp’s was convicted in the Cuyahoga County Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Mapp v. Ohio - 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). On March 29, 1961, Dollree Mapp v. Ohio was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States after an incident with local Ohio law enforcement and a search of Dollree Mapp 's home (Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). In the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment protects and prohibits all persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, can evidence obtained through a search that was in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights still be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This is the issue that will be thoroughly examined in the landmark case of Dollree Mapp v. the State of Ohio (henceforth
At the time of trial, Mr. Wardlow tried to suppress the handgun as evidence due to the fact that he believed the gun had been seized under an unlawful stop and frisk that violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring a showing of probable cause in order to obtain a warrant before conducting such searches. “In a trial motion to suppress the gun, Wardlow claimed that in order to stop an individual, short of actually arresting the person, police first had to point to ‘specific reasonable inferences’ why the stop was necessary.”(Oyez, 2000) Recognizing that an investigati...
There are records of many cases that has created controversies over reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated in the fourth amendment,
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
Imagine being a police officer doing your daily routine job. You are in a patrol car on the highway, watching the cars and trucks drive by. You are also looking for speeders to warn them to be more careful and maybe you’ll ticket them. It has been a very boring day for you, since you have only been called on your radio once, and it was for an accident (fender bender). Almost at the end of your shift, a blue car drives by going ninety miles an hour, but you know the speed limit is only fifty-five miles an hour. You pull the patrol car out of the gravel area that you had been sitting in and you start to follow the car. You put your lights on and catch up to them. After a few minutes you pull the person over. You get out of the car and start walking over towards the blue car. You are right about to talk to the driver and he drives off, leaving nothing but dust in your face. Now, the adrenaline is pumping in your body, but what should you do? You could call for backup or follow the blue car. Anything could happen. How far should you actually go? This is the question that will be answered in this paper. I will explain what police pursuit is and some different things officers do during a pursuit. I will also give some statistics about the fatalities that have happened in a police pursuit. I will also illustrate my opinion about how far police pursuits should go.
The 4th amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If it is violated by the government, all evidence found by the unlawful search and seizure must be excluded as per the exclusionary rule which serves as a remedy for 4th amendment violations. Before a remedy can be given for violation of the 4th amendment, a court must determine whether the 4th amendment is applicable to a certain case.
Plesko, F. (2007). (im) Balance and (un) Reasonsableness: High Speed Police Pursuits and the 4th Amendment. Denver University Law Review, 0(1), 1.
Robinson trial; (2) prejustice and its effects on the processes of the law and society; (3)
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Terry v. Ohio was in 1968 it had a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the fourth amendment prohibition on the unreasonable search and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the streets and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer had a reasonable suspicion of that person had commit a crime in which he can be belief that the person may have a weapons that can be dangerous to a police officer.