Arnold Drake Case Study

Upon arrival, Officer Wheeler activated his (BWC1) body worn camera which was later uploaded to evidence.com. As our patrol vehicle pulled up to St. Luke’s emergency room entrance, I viewed a male later identified as (RV1) Devinelle Lavaughn Broussard with a cellphone in his hand attempting to prevent a female, later identified as (B1) Eleasia Ashanti Fraise, from throwing a (EVD1) red brick. I next saw Fraise throw the brick at a parked (D1) silver BMW, located along the south side walk. The brick fell to the ground and Fraise went to picked it back up. Fraise picked the brick up and moved in the direction of our patrol vehicle with the brick at shoulder height. I parked the patrol vehicle and immediately got out drawing my firearm to a low ready. Officer Broussard stepped out of the vehicle and drew firearm pointing it at Fraise (View Officer Wheeler’s statement for further details). Officer Wheeler and I gave commands to Fraise to drop the brick. Fraise immediately complied and dropped the brick. I holstered my firearm

Police officers including approximately six armed members of the “Special Emergency Response Team” forcibly entered the appellants’ (Bulsey & Anor) house. Bulsey was taken from his bed, placed on the floor, handcuffed and dragged out to the street and later charged with riotous assembly and destruction of a building. In subsequent committal proceedings, the respondent conceded it did not have a case against the first appellant. He was discharged. Bulsey (the first appellant) sued the respondent for damages for trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment). Anor (the second appellant) sued the respondent for damages for assault and false imprisonment. The trial judge dismissed the appellants’ claims with costs, with judgments in favour of the respondent.

2. Owen claims that a Pennsylvania state statue infringes on his "substantive due process" rights. This claim focuses on: the content of the statute

“A decade ago, Hempstead’s only full-time black police officer sued, alleging that Chief Smith had dismissed him on a trumped-up charge after he complained about his supervisor’s racial slurs. An African-American couple also sued, alleging that Chief Smith had turned them away when they reported that a white man had assaulted

Moore began state and federal habeas proceedings, where the federal court granted that Moore the his Sixth Amendment was violated during this trial and punishment phase because he was deprived of ‘effective assistance of counsel”.

This officer spoke with juvenile #1 and his mother Christine about the incident. Juvenile #1 stated earlier in the day he was at Central Park and ran into his ex-girlfriend juvenile #3. Juvenile #1 stated he had words with juvenile #3 and she slapped him at least twice a crossed the side of his face. Juvenile #1 admitted after

The forceful entry into Jasper Scump’s residence, search of his person and car without a warrant violated his fourth amendment rights to be secure in his persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Upon arrival Mansfield PD Officer's were on the scene and had suspect in custody. I spoke Mckay Briggs, Andrey B/M, DOB 09/07/1984, who said that after his step daughter Lovender, Ashlin DOB 06/01/2012 dance recital his mother in law Kent, Ruby DOB 05/27/1960 tried going to the stage to see Ashlin and he told her that she couldn't. Mckay Briggs said that the dance company said that only one care giver per child was allowed on stage. Mckay Briggs said that he got in front of his mother in law trying to prevent her from going on stage. Mckay Briggs said that Kent went around him and continued going on stage and again he stepped in front of her to try and prevent her from going on stage. Mckay Briggs said that the third time he got him front of Kent she pulled a taser out of her purse and begin trying to tase him. Mckay Briggs said that Kent touched him twice with the taser, but was not shocked by the taser. I spoke with Kent who said that she pulled out her taser because she felt threatened. Kent said that she never had to use the taser therefore she didn,t know how to work it. Kent said that she tried tasing Mckay Briggs, but she never made contact with him. Kent said that she was only trying to present her grand

stated that all four boys had been drinking; and that the defendant was outnumbered 4 to 1. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the defendant’s belief that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm was unreasonable. Id. The court found that evidence showed that the respondent tried to avoid a confrontation and made repeated efforts to flee. Id. The court also stated that the defendant’s fears were well founded and borne out by the appearance and conduct of Gale’s four companions and by the fact that the boys were in no way discouraged by the defendant’s gun. Id. The State’s evidence was that the shots were fired in rapid succession. The State did not establish a sufficient interval between the shots which would have allowed the defendant to realize he was no longer in danger. Id. The court held that the evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent did not act in

Mr. Ruckus has been charged with one count of the common law offense of affray, for an incident that occurred at a fraternity house located on the University of North Carolina (UNC) campus. In order to prove the offense of affray three elements must be met: (1) that there was a fight between two or more persons; (2) the fight occurred in a “public place”; and (3) the fight caused terror to persons who qualify as members of the public. In re May,584 S.E.2d 271, 273 (N.C. 2003). The law holds that when two or more parties are indicted for an affray, and the affray is conceded or evidence proves such an event, then the burden is transferred and placed upon anyone of the parties engaged in the affray to defend himself. State v. Freeman,

Petitioner John W Terry was stopped and frisked by Officer McFadden following McFadden’s observations of Terry seemingly case a department store and reasonable suspicion that Terry was part of a plan to commit armed robbery. Officer McFadden felt a pistol in the left breast pocket of Terry’s overcoat and proceeded to seize Terry and the .38 revolver for which he removed from Terry’s pocket.

P alleges assault and false arrest. P, a political activist associated with Cop Watch Patrol, was approached by MOS Butrint, Kreckmann and a female officer on public roadway. P alleges that MOS shine a flashlight in his face and P began to record MOS and requested their names and badge numbers. P alleges that one of the MOS demanded P’s identification and when P refused then MOS grabbed P and slammed him against the fence. P alleges that MOS Kreckmann and Butrint grabbed P’s arm and P’s shoulder popped. P alleges that he was transported to the 46th precinct and defendant MOS Lynch was present at the precinct. P alleges that he was strip searched at the precinct and placed in holding cell. P alleges that he was released from custody with two

D16-0622(3) On 06/06/16, I was informed that the Municipal charge of disorderly conduct does not fit this incident, however CRS 18-9-111 Harassment does. I have completed a motion to dismiss form for the municipal case, which is attached to this report and both parties will be issued summons for the state charge of Harassment with a new court date. No further information at this

The case involved the constitutionality of regulating the length of a police officer’s hair. The regulations banned flared sideburns, beards and required hair to be trimmed and well groomed. The petitioner challenged the regulation. His argument was that the regulations violated his rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth amendment (Yarbrough, 1977).

At 1601 hours I was dispatched to 12625 Wetmore, SATX, Suite 436, Room 1163 to meet with Mr. Jose Robledo concerning the positioning of 4 mannequins in an apartment room in a sexual manner. I arrived on scene at 1604 hours along with several other officers. Upon arrival we met with Mr. Robledo and he explained that the mannequins had been removed from their storage location under the stairs leading to classroom 2 and positioned in a sexual manner in front of a window in the apartment room. Earlier in the day Mr. Robledo had given a tour to Converse Police Department recruiters and at that time the room had not been disturbed. This tour took place shortly before the junior cadet class was dismissed for lunch at approximately 1210. Mr. Robledo returned to the apartment at 1520 and noticed that the mannequins had been positioned in an obscene