Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Opposing racial profiling stereotypes
Crime and its effects
Exclusionary rule
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Opposing racial profiling stereotypes
Facts of the case: Two undercover officers went to an apartment to buy drugs from someone there. Officer G knocked, and a man opened the door. The officer was about two feet away and had several minutes to look at the man, who sold him some drugs. Later an officer at the station left a picture for Officer G to look at in his office. Officer G identified the picture of as the dealer.
Legal Question: Did the court of appeals in allowing the police officer to identify Brathwaite from a single photograph?
Reason: No. Justice Harry A. Blackmun, writing for a 7-2 majority, reversed the court of appeals. The Supreme Court held that a suggestive identification procedure does not automatically require excluding the evidence if the identification is
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
For example, in his article “Fighting Police Corruption”, Krauss states, “The 911 call could hardly have been more routine. A man wearing a denim jacket and fatigue pants was reported to be selling drugs outside a housing project in southern Brooklyn. Two plainclothes officers responded to the call on a mild night last month, frisked the man and found $400 under the seat of his bicycle. But finding no drugs, the police let him go. The officers were unaware that they had just taken "a walk on the dark side": police talk for an Internal Affairs Bureau sting. The "drug dealer" was actually an undercover officer wired for sound, and the interchange was videotaped from a van parked a block away to see if the officers would rough up the supposed dealer or steal his money. These officers did neither”. Sting operations like this one are a central part of the Police Department 's efforts to overcome the damaging corruption scandals that engulfed the 75Th Precinct in NY between 1986 and
In July 2003, Sheriff’s Deputy Todd Shanks of Multnomah County Oregon was performing a routine traffic stop on a vehicle driven by William Barrett. During this stop, Shanks arrested Barrett because of an outstanding warrant and then searched the car. A pressure-cooker found in the trunk was believed to be used in the making of methamphetamine. Barrett informed Shanks that the owner of the pressure-cooker was “Gunner Crapser,” and that he could be found at the Econolodge Motel in a room registered to a woman named Summer Twilligear (FindLaw, 2007, Factual and Procedural Background section, para. 2). Deputy Shanks quickly learned that there was an outstanding warrant for a “Gunner Crapser” but to not confuse the wanted man, whose name was not actually “Gunner Crapser,” with someone else using this name.
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.
On June 26, 2006, a Sheriff Officer of the State of Florida, William Wheetley and his drug detection dog, Aldo, were on patrol. Furthermore, Officer Wheetley conducted a traffic stop of the defendant Clayton Harris for expired tags on his truck. As Officer Wheetley approached the truck, he noticed that Harris was acting nervous/anxious, more than he should have, and he also noticed an open can of beer in the cup holder next to him. At that moment, Officer Wheetley knew that he was hiding something, he requested to search
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...
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
The Court sets up their argument by listing two competing concerns which must be accommodated in defining a voluntary consent. They are the legitimate need for such searches and the requirement of assuring the absence of coercion. The Court digresses from the case at hand with the first concern. The facts of Schneckloth v. Bustamonte indicate that the suspects were stopped for the violation of having lights burned out on their automobile. Given these circumstances there is no legitimate need to search for further evidence. All the proof needed to give a ticket for...
When officer Faultless seized the phones of Rahten and Ruhmoan both were secured then secured by officer faultless. Officer faultless unable to unlock the phones noticing Ruhmoan’s phone required his thumb print to open and forcefully used his thumb to unlock his phone. Once unlocked the officer noticed information from a text about a gun being in their car. This lead to the officer searching the car and discovering a gun. The gun was located in the passenger’s driver’s seat well out of the view of both
Lazarus initially moved to dismiss the case against her on the ground that the delay in filing criminal charges prejudiced her ability to conduct a proper defense. In response, the State argued that because there had been no deliberate, tactical decision to delay prosecuting Lazarus, her rights had not been violated. The Court agreed with the State, holding that because there was no evidence that the delay in arresting Lazarus was intentional or used to gain a tactical advantage, Lazarus could not succeed on a motion to dismiss for violation of due process. Noting that DNA testing is an expensive, cumbersome process that may not always provide for a swift resolution of a criminal investigation, the trial court found that the delay was justifiable since there was a need to properly undertake the DNA testing process before the DNA collected from the bite mark could be matched to
About the only piece of evidence they had was opinions and that's not a hundred percent correct just because someone says something doesn't mean it's true they need DNA or fingerprints for it to be
Ethics play a huge role in a police officers line of work. Since police are given such a high degree of trust and authority, it can unfortunately be very easy for an officer to fall into some unethical behavior. This can range from just minor acts that are frowned upon, to actual downright illegal activity. Even though there are a countless number of acts and behaviors that can be considered unethical, in the following paper I will focus primarily on those incidents involving police officers who steal for their own personal gain, and discuss my position on the issue.