Graham V. Conner 1989

This case is one that changed the way the United States Police forces will work forever. Every human in the world has natural born rights. Even people who have been arrested have rights, ‘The rights of the accused’. These rights are the main point of this court case.

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

The Articles outlined each power the three different branches of government had as well as the state's powers and the process of amending the Constitution. Articles VI and VII establishes the Constitution as the law of the land and describes the requirements needed to ratify the new Constitution. The first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights and the Bill of Rights itself was put in place to protect the individual rights of the people. The Bill of Rights was made to be able to adapt with the nation at time went by and society

Working for a law enforcement agency one must be able to make split second decisions regarding the use of force. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) established the standard of “objective reasonableness” for law enforcement (Graham v. Connor, 1989). This case was heard by the Supreme Court after a diabetic man (Graham) was forcibly detained by law enforcement after he was suspected of a crime.

The Bill of Rights became a very important document in the United States Constitution in order to ensure United States citizens equal protection of their rights and liberties. The main objective of the Bill of rights was to place limits on the national government creating an understanding and dividing the powers between the states and the national government. Not all the powers were granted to the national government however not all the powers were prohibited to the states. As stated by Ginsberg, Lowi, Weir & Tolbert (2015) the bill of rights consists of 10 amendments incorporated in the U.S constitution. It is important to note that each amendment contains a legal court case in which the supreme court as well as the government have ruled and have ignored or have protected the rights of the individuals involved.

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. The Court found that the officer acted on more than an “hunch” and that “a reasonably prudent

The creation of the US constitution was prompted my many different things going on. What established America’s national government and fundamental laws is the U.S constitution. It also guarantees basic rights for its citizens. The U.S constitution was signed on September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia, Pa. The first document before the U.S constitution was the Articles of Confederation, with that the government wasn’t very strong and the states didn’t act like they do today. In 1787, at the 1787 convention, delegates made a decision to make a stronger federal government that consisted of the executive, legislative, and the judicial branches. That wasn’t it either, it also had a system of checks and balances because they did not want one branch to be able to overpower another branch. The ten amendments of the Bill of Rights guarantees protections for people like religion and freedom of speech. In total, there are twenty-seven constitutional amendments.

First, it substantially limits citizens’ Fourth Amendment right to personal security. “The constitutional lodestar for understanding the Fourth Amendment is not an ad hoc reasonableness standard; rather, the central meaning of the Fourth Amendment is distrust of police power and discretion.” However, many courts give strong deference to the judgement of police officers and judicial scrutiny makes it impermissible to second-guess police officer’s split second judgments. “Were courts to consider the historical distrust of police power when reviewing reasonable force claims, one would expect less deference to police judgment and more concern for an individual’s interest in personal security.” The Fourth Amendment was intended to protect citizens from governmental abuses and yet the factors put forth by Graham are far more protective of law enforcement

At final, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s ruling. The Court said that all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force whether deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop or any other seizure of a citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, rather than the under a substantive due process. The court also stated that a seizure occurs when a law enforcment officer terminates a free citizen’s movement by a means interntionally applied. An officer may sieze a person in many ways including: traffic stops, investigative detentions, and arrests are all seizures under the 4th amendmet. To seize a person, an officer may yell, “stop”, handcuff, a baton, or a firearm can be used to comply the subject with officer orders.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

the founding document of our nation’s laws and government. Within its texts, the Constitution outlines the operations and existence of all three branches of government, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, as well as their functions and interdependence. The constitution also includes the Bill of Rights, and all other amendments that serve as a basis for any law created in our country at either the federal or state level. While semi-extensive, the main rights we share are those from the bill of rights, which

The U.S. Constitutional Rights are laws that guarantee the basic rights for the citizens.There are twenty-seven Constitutional Amendments in total, but 10 of them represent The Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights ensures the basic individual protections such as freedom of speech and religion. The Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution in December 15, 1791 by George Mason.

A possible civil action stemming from the provided scenario would arise as a violation of the suspect’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. Most lawsuits of violations of a subject’s Fourth Amendment rights are against unreasonable search, seizure and any use of force is properly analyzed as a seizure (U.S. Code, 1983).

Procedure:     Garner’s father brought the action the police officer took in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, looking for violations that were made of Garner’s constitutional rights. The complaint was alleged that the shooting of Garner violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. After a three day trial, the District Court entered judgement for all defendants. It dismissed the claims against the defendants as being the mayor and Officer Hymon and the Police Department as being the director for lack of evidence. Hymon’s actions were then concluded to being constitutional by being under the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted accordingly to the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals then reversed and remanded. It reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only if actions are reasonable. In this case the actions were found not to be reasonable. Officers cannot use deadly force unless they have probable cause that the suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or has committed a felony.

Whenever a law enforcement officer places an individual under arrest or is involved in a deadly force scenario the officer has used some degree of force. The incidents where an office has to make a split second decision and use physical force to control a situation is known as “Use of Force.” The use of force varies as situations present themselves to the officer and they must decide what level of force is necessary to control the situation. Often the use of force is subject to much debate and not a year goes by without some media coverage of some law enforcement officer accused of using excessive force. In dozens of studies of police use of force there is no single,