False Imprisonment Without Legal Justification

The law states that everyone has the right to live without interference from others and should not be unlawfully restrained.

The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are most notable for their protection of the rights of suspected and accused individuals. All to often we forget it also covers the rights of those persons convicted of a crime. There are two positions when it comes the rights of convicted and imprisoned persons, which are rights-are-retained and rights-are-lost. In retrospect, they are both right because prisoners rights may not be granted rights nor shall rights be withheld that are not supported by law. Therefore, prisoners are given Conditional Rights because they are constrained by the legitimate needs of imprisonment. The Conditional Rights of inmates are communication and vision, religious freedom, access to the courts and legal assistance,

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

and seizure (Fourth Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall

The primary issues in the case that were discussed were about whether it is necessary that the police officer who makes an arrest in obedience to that order also holds the suspicion, whether a judge’s delay in giving judgment can prejudice the second appellant’s case, and whether the conduct of the police and “SERT” Operatives constitutes as torts of false imprisonment or assault. (Elaborate on all 3 issues) Whether or not s 52(1) in Ch 3 of CLA precludes awards of aggravated damages. “A court can not award exemplary, punitive or aggravated damages in relation to a claim for personal injury damages.”

In the case of Robinson versus California, the Court drew-out the Eighth Amendment's prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment to the states. Today, the Court identifies certain rights of offenders. At the same time, the Court confirmed that offenders do have fewer rights than free citizens. This was based on reasonable punishment and the restriction of the rights of prisoners. It was implemented by the Hands-Off Doctrine. This doctrine allowed the Rehnquist Court to grant correctional officials the authority to choose what restrictions should be placed on offenders. Another right protected by the First Amendment was freedom of association. In Jones versus North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, the Supreme Court supported the constitutionality of restrictions on the activities of a prisoner labor union. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process to all citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws. Prisoners have no Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Prison officials can monitor prisoners' activities throughout prisons, watch prisoners in their cells, and conduct warrantless searches inside

A right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is declared by the Fourth Amendment, but how one is to translate the guarantee into concrete terms is not specified. Several possible methods of enforcement have been suggested over time; however, the Supreme Court has settled, not without dissent, on only one as an effective means to make real the right.

Specify the reasons for preventative detention, and describe the forms of release from jail pending trial.

The alleged tortfeasor, Ryan, was in a department store when the store security guard walked up to him, took him by the arm, and dragged him into an office. The security officer turned around walked out of the office locked the door and never spoke to the alleged tortfeasor. After several hours of being locked in the small office, Ryan tried the door to leave. Finally, the security guard returned and stated he was waited to check video surveillance and thought Ryan shoplifted, however, did not see any evidence on the videotape and was free to go.

The case was appealed to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and given a new trial; this case lasted from January 11, 1982 to June 18, 1982. They held that Romeos Eighth Amendment was not the appropriate right in question but instead, his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment should be under question of violation. The question now in court was if Romeo had “substantive rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to safe conditions of confinement, freedom from bodily restrains, and training or habilitation” (Justia Law). The en banc court did not agree on the process of determining if Romeo’s rights had been violated and stated that the use of physical restraints “can be justified only by compelling necessity” (Justia Law), ‘substantial necessity’ justifies an infringement on his right to safe conditions, and his access to habilitation and treatment needs to be “acceptable in the light of present medical or other scientific knowledge” (Justia Law).

committed a 1st to 3rd degree crime. The right to seek relief from unlawful imprisonment relief

While the insistence on freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures as a fundamental right gained expression in the Colonies late and as a result of experience,1 there was also a rich English experience to draw on. "Every man's house is his castle" was a maxim much celebrated in England, as was demonstrated in Semayne's Case, decided in 1603.2 A civil case of execution of process, Semayne's Case nonetheless recognized the right of the homeowner to defend his house against unlawful entry even by the King's agents, but at the same time recognized the authority of the appropriate officers to break and enter upon notice in order to arrest or to execute the King's process. Entick, an associate of Wilkes, sued because agents had forcibly broken

In my opinion, the United States in the case of Bailey was not in the wrong to detain Polo aka Chunon Bailey while searching his apartment. I believe the officers did everything in their power to make sure they had valid evidence before requesting a search warrant for Polo's apartment and good reasoning to detain him at the crime scene. In Michigan v. Summers the court allowed the officers, who were conducting the search, to detain the tenant while the search is being done. Consequently, the court did not state when the detainment should occur, so using the Fourth Amendment as a model for reasonableness, the court of appeals decided that officers could detain a tenant who leaves the vicinity, considering that the detainment happened in a timely

There have been numerous class actions challenging the use of solitary confinement. Due process along with rights guaranteed under the eighth and fourteenth amendment has been brought into questioning. The eighth amendment indicates that the United States federal government is prohibited from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment. The fourteenth amendment addresses citizens of there right to equal protection of the laws, which was in response to slaves during the American Civil War.

The aim of this report is to investigate the legitimacy of the false imprisonment claim that was made by Mrs. Park toward Paula’s Palette. The letter, which was written by Mrs. Park, indicated that Mrs. Park demanded compensation in her medical care expense and her loss of future income for the cause of action of the false imprisonment. In addition, this report includes an analysis and evaluations of Mrs. Park’s past real income, which was about $566,407.2, and predicted price indices for 1991 to 2005 and the projected real income for the next ten years as well. Moreover, an examination was conducted to determine if there are any liabilities under the cause of action of false imprisonment that was made by Paula’s Palette. A court will determine