Hamilton Violation Case Study

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.

After the second charges against Nifong were announced, the North Carolina State Bar Committee finally canceled his law license. In 2007, the organization issued a disciplinary hearing report that identified the factors that lead to Nifong’s disbarment and conviction to be “selfish motive; misconduct; refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct in the respect of the handling of the DNA evidence” (North Carolina State Bar, 2007). The same year Nifong was placed into Durham County jail to serve his

Facts: Albert Florence was arrested for an outdated warrant. Upon his arrest he was taken to the Burlington County Detention Center where he was subject to a strip search. He remained there for six days and then was transferred to the Essex county facility where he was subjected to another strip search and a visual body cavity search. Florence contends that these searches violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment

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.

* The charges against Williams included that she lied to investigators, tyrannical behavior, especially in running her drug court. Williams had imposed indefinite jail terms on drug defendants, deprived some of contact with their lawyers and jailed one man 14 days for questioning a positive drug test. The commission also accused Williams of giving favorable treatment to family members of friends and those of high social standing. She was also accused of nepotism for allowing family members to practice before her. In one case, Williams warned parties they would be subject to contempt should they fail to pay a $1000 fee to her daughter within 30 days. Other charges include ordering that a

First off the does seem that the sheriff was in the wrong in the demotion of the deputy from both a legal and a subsequent policy violation. It appears that the sheriff may have violated the deputies first amendment rights, although a preexisting department policy forbidding holding or running for office by the deputy may protect the sheriff from liability in this instance. What would have been a better scenario is that the sheriffs department had and independent inquiry on this matter to see if the deputy violated any law or internal policy, however the sheriff being an elected official simply looks as though he is firing the deputy out of retribution thus possibly weakening his his public image. Not only does it seem that the sheriff may have violated the deputies first amendment rights but may have also violated his freedom of religion, not only this but the United States is a secularist democracy with very touted ideals of the separation of both the church and state from one another.

During the morning fall hours of November 7th, 2013 within the minute desolate rural community of Cheyenne Wells, Colorado as entered the historic three story Victorian style building in which the 15th District Court of Cheyenne County which was playing host to several criminal court cases according to the court docket. The county happens to be the sixth least densely populated county within the state of Colorado in which provided a shocking revelation as the vastly large docket of criminal offenses in which was scheduled to be heard this morning. In order to access the courtrooms on would began by walking to the second floor of the county building building were Sheriff Ken Putnam was found standing outside the courtroom next to a metal detector. Sheriff Putnam was acting as the court security officer.

The defendant Gary Ewing was a multiple offender of several crimes from grand theft auto to drug possession..  On December 9, 1993, Ewing was arrested on the premises of a  apartment complex for trespassing and lying to a police officer. After his conviction of first-degree robbery and three counts of residential burglary,Ewing  was sentenced to nine years and eight months in prison.  On parole from a nine year sentence he entered into El Segundo golf course store empty handed but left with a pants leg full of merchandise. After the police was notified by the the store employee Ewing was arrested before even leaving the premises. When arrested three golf clubs each priced at $399 was confiscated from him so he  was convicted of one count of felony grand theft of personal property in excess of $400. The trial court found as a newly convicted felon with two or more “serious” or “violent” felony convictions in his past, Ewing  was sentenced to 25 years to life. In examining Ewing 's claim that his sentence is grossly disproportionate, the gravity of the offense must be compared to the harshness of the penalty.. The California Supreme Court has noted that crime 's seriousness in the context of

In May 1983 Donald Hersing, an undercover FBI informant, exposed widespread corruption in the Philadelphia Police Department. Hersing, the prosecution's main witness in a Grand Jury indictment which led to the conviction of former Central Division inspector John DeBenedetto and six other, former officers; John Smith, Abe Schwartz, Vincent McBride, and Larry Molloy, on conspiracy related charges, bribery and the extortion of money, and other considerations, to protect prostitution and vice activities in the center city. James Carlini, the former Headquarters Inspector in charge of the homicide division, was named as an “unindicted co-conspirator.” Hersing also participated in an investigation which led to, additional corruption indictments and to the convictions of about two dozen other Philadelphia police officers. Former Deputy Commissioner John Martin, and former Inspector Alphonso Giordano, were also indicted for corruption during the early 1980s. While Officer Faulkner was not involved in the extortions some of the officers he worked with where obviously "on the take". Several officer identified and convicted of extortion and corruption were on the scene of Officer Faulkner's shooting Dec 9, 1981. While Mumia alleges that he was assaulted by police officers several times on the night of the shooting, it is not clear whether any of the officers involved in the Grand Jury investigation participated

In the article “Justices divided over N.J. police officer’s First Amendment case” by Robert Barnes, he argued that public employee’s First Amendment should be protected when politics is involved. In this problem, the former detective Jeffrey Heffernan was demoted because of “…his ‘overt’ involvement in a political campaign” (Barnes). In Paterson, New Jersey, the former mayor and the new candidate, Lawrence Spagnola, were running for mayor. Before Heffernan was demoted, he was seen by an officer who saw him picking up a yard sign of Spagnola campaign. Therefore, he was demoted because Heffernan were “involved” in a political campaign. In “Justices divided over N.J. police officer’s First Amendment case”, there are many problem such as debating

No. The Court’s ruling was 7-0 in favor of the mayor and city council of Baltimore.

Jeffrey Heffernan, who worked as a cop in Paterson, New Jersey, was demoted, or given a lower rank, from detective to a foot post in 2005 by the police chief. When an election for mayor was held, Joey Torres ran against Lawrence Spagnola. Because Heffernan’s mother was bedridden and her first campaign yard sign got stolen, Heffernan helped his mother pick up another one. Another police officer, serving as Torres’s bodyguard, saw Heffernan with a Spagnola yard sign. Immediately, the news spread to Paterson Police Department, where Torres had the support of the head police chief. As a result, Heffernan was degraded from detective to foot patrol. Later, he sued the department for demoting him. He claims that he just helped his mother pick up a yard sign. In 2009 Heffernan won a reward of $105,000. However, the judge later changed his decision. This U.S. Court of Appeals established a decision, which was in favor of Paterson, in January 2015. The dispute has been carried to the Supreme Court, and Heffernan’s lawyers are asking the Supreme Court to invalidate the U.S. Court of Appeals’s decision. By the end of June, the Supreme Court may have their decision. This happened mainly because of a misinterpretation between the head chief and Heffernan.

In the case of Sibron versus New York was an important case for the United States Constitution. Law enforcement officer, Anthony Martinez, observed Nelson Sibron for several hours, while talking to several narcotics addicts. Officer Anthony Martinez told Sibron that he is after one thing and then Sibron reach into his pocket, which he pulled out several heroin envelopes. Sibron was arrested and charged for drug trafficking. Sibron stated that his constitutional rights was violated, when he was stop and frisk search for no probable cause. The Criminal Court of New York City denied Sibron’s motion, but Sibron appealed to the court decision. The United States Supreme Court review Sibron’s case along with Peters versus New York. John Peters was

Hurricane Katrina destroyed the New Orleans system of courts, allowing the removal of all checks and balances. The factual narrative of Zeitoun, a Syrian American businessman, concerning his arrest one week after hurricane Katrina as recounted in Dave Eggers Zeitoun. His story, one of many, describes what happens when law enforcement and government ignore constitutional protections. One year after Katrina Brandon L. Garrett and Tania Tetlow’s article, Criminal Justice Collapse: The Constitution After Hurricane Katrina published in the Duke Law Journal, explains what happened. Two years after Katrina, Caterina Gouvis Roman, Seri Irazola, and Jenny W.L. Osborne’s research in After Katrina Washed away? Justice in New Orleans published by the Urban Institute, reviews the then current state of the New Orleans legal system and finds the continuation of the same problems. In Zeitoun’s case, without oversight, law enforcement denied him access to communication, counsel or due process.

This memo is regarding Hamilton Corporation and the fraud that occurred. When people make decisions they don’t always do it with the right mindset. There are limitations in our judgment processes and we can identify methods to mitigate bias and improve judgment (KPMG Judgment Framework). The four common tendencies that cause limitations in our judgment processes are, availability, confirmation, overconfidence, and anchoring. In this memo I will explain each of the four tendencies, talk about which tendency I believe to have manifested in the Hamilton case, clarify issues relating to auditing the warranty reserve and describe the alternatives that should be considered in auditing the warranty reserve, and finally provide factors that