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 …show more content…
All agencies that equip their officers with Tasers properly train their personnel as well as have it in their use of force continuum. Mr. Bryan was stopped for a seatbelt violation and although he was being vulgar and acting irate, he was not directing it towards Officer McPherson. Even though Bryan exited his vehicle, Officer McPherson could have gave him commands to just stay at the vehicle and do not approach him unless directed to. I have been on traffic stops when the driver abruptly exited the vehicle without being directed to do so. My thought on this is even though they exited their vehicle, I do not want them to get back into their vehicle because they may have a weapon in the vehicle that they cannot now reach or drive off, and I can keep a better eye on their actions out of the vehicle. I believe that Officer McPherson could have handled this situation a lot better with more verbal judo and professionalism. Even though it is taught that a reactionary gap of 21 feet is recommended when dealing with an unknown suspect, Officer McPherson could tell that Bryan had nothing in his hands and did not pose a threat. I am not a fan of Taser guns for the simple fact that there have been too many lawsuits and injuries that stem from the usage of them. My department’s view on them is that they are not necessary and as long as the trooper is properly trained in
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
McLaughlin v. Heikkila is a case that involves Wilbert Heikklia and David Mc Laughlin who entered into an agreement involving eight parcels to be sold to Mr. Mc Laughlin by Mr. Heikklia. According to Cheeseman (2013), the facts of the case indicate that Mr. Mc Laughlin submitted offers to Mr. Heikklia for the purchase of three parcels and afterwards, McLaughlin submitted earnest-money checks and three printed purchase agreements to Heikklia. According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, McLaughlin himself never signed any of the agreements. However, his wife did sign two of the agreements and she initiated the third agreement on September 14, 2003. Then, two days later on September 16, 2003 Heikklia made changes to two of the agreements by increasing the cost of the parcels, and he changed the closing dates on all three agreements, including add a reservation of mineral rights to all three (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2005).
Many people today argue that McCulloch v. Maryland is one of the most important Supreme Court cases in United States history. Three main points were made by Chief Justice Marshall in this case, and all of these points have become critical and necessary parts of the U.S. Government and how it functions. The first part of the Supreme Court’s ruling stated that Congress has implied powers under a specific part of the Constitution referred to as the Necessary and Proper Clause. The second section of the ruling determined that the laws of the United States are more significant and powerful than any state laws that conflict with them. The last element addressed by Chief Justice Marshall was that sovereignty of the Union lies with the people of the
In a handful of occasions such as in an interrogation it seems reasonable enough to lie to an individual in order for them to confess to a crime. A case law that shows this was Frazier v. Cupp in which according to Police Link, “ The case involved the interrogation of a homicide suspect who was falsely told that an accomplice had already implicated the suspect in the killing.” In the case of Frazier v. Cupp kept on getting integrated even after he asked to speak to a lawyer so as a result he ended up doing a written confession where he confessed about being part of the murder that was later used as evidence against him.
In 2013, the Court accepted certiorari on two very significant cases that wrestled with significant Fourth Amendment issues. In Missouri v. McNeely, the respondent, McNeely, was pulled over on suspicion of driving-while-impaired after the officer witnessed him driving erratically. McNeely failed other field sobriety tests, and then refused to provide a breath sample for a preliminary breath test. The officer placed McNeely under arrest, and began to transport him back to the station. Once McNeely informed the officer that he would again refuse to provide a breath sample at the station, the officer diverted McNeely to a hospital to obtain a sample of McNeely’s blood. At the hospital, the officer read the informed-consent advisory to McNeely, and informed him that test-refusal would result in license revocation and could be used as evidence in a subsequent prosecution. McNeely still refused to consent to any testing. The officer directed a hospital technician to take a blood sample anyways, that revealed that McNeely’s blood alcohol concentration was almost twice the legal limit.
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
The Snyder v. Phelps et al Supreme court case in 2011 was one of the most controversial cases in United States Supreme court history. Fred Phelps, the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, took his followers to picket the Snyder’s son. Snyder’s son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in action. The Westboro Baptist Church came holding up signs stating such things as, “Thanks God For 9/11”, or “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”. After seeing these signs, the grieving family attempted to take them to court, hoping to silence them. Originally Snyder won, until through multiple appeals the case eventually found its way in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor of Phelps 8-1.
The case of Bryan v McPherson encompasses excessive use of force through the deployment of a Taser. The facts of the case are Bryan was operating a motor vehicle without using his seatbelt when Officer McPherson conducted a traffic stop for the infraction (Wu, 2010). When Bryan realized why he was being stopped he became angry with himself, and due to his overwhelming anger, he did not answer Officer McPherson question as to why he was stopped (Wu, 2010). Additionally, during the traffic stop Officer McPherson requested Bryan turn down his radio and pull his vehicle over to the curb and Bryan complied with both requests (Wu, 2010). As Bryan’s anger intensified he started hitting his steering wheel and screamed several obscenities to himself
Years and wars later another case comes to the Supreme Court to test Freedom and Speech and the Clear and Present Danger test. David O’Brien is a Boston University student protesting the Vietnam War and its draft. O’Brien is convicted for burning his draft card in March 31, 1966. (McGoldrick 2006, 903). O’Brien and three others were charged with violating the Universal Military Training Service Act, which prohibits the destruction of a draft card. O’Brien was found guilty and was sentenced to federal prison for a period of two to five years. Boston’s First Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the court conviction on the grounds that the law prohibiting the destruction of draft cards violated the First Amendment. O’Brien’s act was interpreted as symbolic speech. The appellate court, then, ruled that while O’Brien’s free speech rights should be upheld, he could
In conclusion, Tasers are an extremely effective tool for officers in dangerous situation as long as they are trained properly. For example, 12 hour training courses involving tasers have been implemented in order to decrease the number of accidents due to the tasers' misuses. Next, with mental health on the rise, tasers are another tool on the belt for officers before they have to draw their lethal force weapons. Also, citizens are jumping too quickly to the negative stigma about tasers causing death. The deaths are resulting from other causes such as: health conditions, misuse of the taser, or lack of training. Ultimately, there needs to be more positive light on tasers and how they can be a huge asset not only to police officers, but for public safety as well.
During this time in the show officers usually will explain laws broken and regards for their personal safety to justify their use of force or their actions (Barbour & Langley, 1989). Use of force is a “hot topic” in policing today, many people have a misunderstanding of the use of force continuum discussed in class. Use of force is very commonly seen in COPS and if officers were not allowed the opportunity to explain their actions the show could create a poor representation of police officers. Luckily the show attempts to clarify use of force by allowing the shadowed officer a chance to explain their actions after the incident. An example of reasonable use of force is seen in the show when an small female officer has to use her taser neglects to follow commands of the officer and keeps walking toward her, a larger male officer probably would not have to use a taser to subdue the man but the female officer feared for her protection so the force was justified (Barbour & Langley, 1989). Factors like officer size can account for how much force is used in a situation. When people claim excessive use of force they often neglect to consider officer and public safety and will quickly assume officers are abusing their
The way that the man proceeds to get out of the car makes it seem as though he is about to attack the officer. In all honesty I thought the man was going to attack him but he didn't he continued to pick up the pieces as the officer told him. If the man would have gotten physical at this time the officer or trooper would have had to either use bodily strength in which he would personally tried to hold down the man or he would of been put in a situation in which the need of a weapon would have been necessary. Being in this situation would cause me to be more alert with the man and maybe having a hand on a weapon or be ready to calm the man down just in case if the man got out of hand. Lastly another decision or choice that the officer had was to overreact when the man began to be hostile since the beginning but instead the officer was calm and doing his job with informing the man of what he was getting or going to do with the ticket. Seeing the man get a bit violent and hostile throughout the video cause be to be a bit frustrated with the
The Taser gun is a more recent but further common when law enforcement officers want and need to control a more forceful individual who is either a danger to themselves or to others. The Taser sends an electrical current into the body through small, needle like wires that mess up certain
To be able to use a hand Taser you first have to be shot by one so you can feel what it feels like to be shot by one. The majority of the nonlethal weapons the police force uses has to once be used on them in order to carry. For instance an officer that has a mace container on them has to be shot in the face for 3 seconds with pepper spray so they can see what it does to the human body before they use it on the public. . Non-lethal weapons may also be used in a battlefield,
White, M. D., & Ready, J. (2009). Examining fatal and nonfatal incidents involving the TASER. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(4), 865-891. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00600.x