Illegal Strip Search Case

Cases R v Park (1994) where procedures laid down in the PACE Act were not followed properly and evidence could not be submitted. Also R v Fenlley [1989] in which the defendant had not been informed properly of the reason for stop and search can lead to suspects being unable to be prosecuted. It is hard to justify these results and describe the use of stop and searches as a valuable tool in the detection of crime. Especially when there is a large amount of evidence from reports, cases and statistical information showing the disproportionate amount of Black and Asian individuals that are stopped and searched under section 1 of PACE 1984. This has led to issues arising between the police and the community.

Today’s justice professionals are in the public eye more than ever. There are a multitude of devices out there that allow civilians to capture every move a street officer makes. It is more crucial now than ever that these officers arm themselves with the knowledge of ethics along with the items on their utility belt. The wrong choice in any decision a justice professional makes will have the public ready and willing to lash out. These difficult ethical decisions are all part of the job that they have taken. Taking the time to learn about what is right and wrong is essential to their positions in society.

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

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

Throughout the past centuries, the United States has encountered many court cases dealing with illegally searching citizens homes and using the evidence found against them. Cases dealing with Search and Seizure have dated back to Mapp v. Ohio, in which Dollree Mapp’s apartment was illegally searched and child pornography was found. This case raised the question, may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This issue is a major problem because it could lead to many citizens rioting and even more cases dealing with this controversial topic. In spite of many attempts to eliminate illegal search and seizures, it has still been a reoccurring problem. Regarding the issue of search and seizure, the Supreme Court has developed a much

In the case of Illinois vs. Wardlow, many factors contributed to Wardlow’s arrest. Starting with the facts of the case, on September 9, 1995 Sam Wardlow fled after seeing police vehicles covering an area in Chicago where it was known to have high drug trafficking. Two police officers spotted Wardlow, Officers Nolan and Officer Harvey, and once Officer Nolan caught up with Mr. Wardlow, Officer Nolan proceeded to conduct a pat-down search of only the outer layer of clothing, or a “Terry Stop.” Officer Nolan was well aware that in this area, there was almost always a weapon on a suspect that was involved with some type of drug transaction. After conducting the frisk, Officer Nolan squeezed the opaque colored bag that Mr. Wardlow was

In 2005, Albert Florence was admitted to a New Jerseyś Burlington County Jail for a minor offense and was thoroughly searched. According to Florence, his 4th Amendment was violated, and the searches conducted against him were unreasonable. He was forced to disrobe, squat while naked, shower in front of security, and prove that there was no contraband stored in or under his genitals. After Florence 's release from jail, he sued the government and went to the federal trial court, which ruled in favor of the petitioner (Albert Florence). However, the Third Circuit reversed, deeming that searches done in jail were constitutional due to the fact that they were promoting and protecting safety. The law states that “Strip search, including a digital rectal search, of a prisoner who allegedly refused to cooperate and injured a guard in resisting was reasonable and justified by a legitimate interest in maintaining order and security.” After the Third Circuit 's reversal the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. After viewing the precedent cases, the Supreme Court ruled that searches were lawful and did not in any way revoke 4th Amendment rights.

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court saying that the search did violate Savanna Fourth Amendment right because no drugs were suspected to be concealed in her bra and underwear so they had no reason . The judge felt the school officials were not liable and entitled to qualified immunity because school officials were just trying to prevent drugs distributed throughout the school.

In the Mapp vs Ohio state court case, the issue disputed was when the appellant Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing “obscene” materials after an illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. During the year of 1961, Ohio police were looking for a criminal accused of a bombing and had been told that he was hiding in Dollree Mapp 's house. Police acted quickly and came to her house but when she didn 't answer the door, police officers forced themselves inside. Dollree demanded to see the police 's search warrant once having spoken to her attorney but police didn’t have one so they held a piece of paper to disguise that it was a warrant when it really wasn’t. Dollree grabbed the paper and when trying to read it, she was then handcuffed on the ground and police continued to search her house (Landmark cases). During the search, officers found pornography and other materials that were against Ohio State law in her basement. As a result, Dollree was arrested, found guilty, and sentenced to 1 to 7 years in the Ohio Women 's Reformatory. Dollree felt that justice was unfair so she consulted with her attorney. “She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression” (Oyez). Dollree’s lawyers argued to the Supreme Court of Ohio that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal (warrantless) search and how it was illegally obtained. “In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio

R.v. Feeney (1997) is a important case for the development of a Feeney warrant, which is needed for the police to enter a dwelling house. This ensures individuals have privacy at their homes from the police making forcible entries. When a suspect gets arrested and their privacy rights are infringed. The job of the courts are then to evaluate the case, and check if the appellants rights were indeed violated, if so was it because the protection of society outweigh the individual right to privacy. First, in this paper we will discuss important section numbers relating to the Feeney case which includes section 8, 10 (b), and section 24 (b). Than we will examine the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Feeney case and how this case has impacted police in their work and assuring individuals their right to privacy. After we will look at two other cases precedent to the Feeney case that includes R.v. Godoy (1999) and R.v. Gomboc (2010). Lastly, the personal analysis section will evaluate the decisions made from the three cases, identifying whether the judges have made the correct decisions.

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

The Committee did sanction the two officers and gave them both a ten-day suspension without pay. Charles also filed a civil rights complaint against the two officers to the Quebec Human Rights Commission. This complaint also included the officer’s employer: The city of Montreal. The Commission, in contrast to the Ethics committee, ruled that Charles had bee a victim of racial profiling and was to be awarded $33,000 compensation money. This includes a $25,000 penalty in moral damages because of the evidence supporting that racial profiling had occurred. This is precedent setting for Canada because cases that follow will have to take racial profiling more

A police officer responded to a call about an assault by a man against a woman. Upon arrival, he asked the man (later identified as Mr. Hiibel) multiple times to identify himself, to which he refused. Mr. Hiibel was then charged with “willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office” (Larry Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada, 2004). After being arrested, charged, and convicted, Mr. Hiibel took his case to the U.S Supreme Court because he felt that the Nevada law that requires citizens disclose their identity to a police officer violated his 4th and 5th Amendment rights. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rejected his claim that the law was unconstitutional. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy says that the search was not unreasonable based on the fact that there was reasonable suspicion (4th Amendment to the U.S constitution) and that simply stating his name was not self-incriminating (5th Amendment to the U.S Constitution).

The opinion handed down from the Supreme Court on this matter by Chief Justice Warren was a six to one vote with majority as Justices Earl Warren, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, John M. Harlan II, and William J. Brennan, Jr. the only justice in dissent was Justice Tom C. Clark. The issue present in the case was if the subcommittee is unconstitutionally exercising powers they were not granted under the constitution such as invasive questions into people’s personal lives. Watkins argued that his conviction by the court of appeals violated his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. The decision by the court overturned his conviction based on the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Chief Justice Warren stated that it is Congress’s right to investigate items that are intrinsic to the legislative process however broad this power is, it is not unlimited. This power of investigation is to oversee current laws and proposed statues, exposing defects in the political and socioeconomic systems and find a way to fix them. Under this power it is not to expose the private day-to-day life of an individual or their past. This investigation set out to punish the people investigated and propels the status of the investigators. It is the duty of a citizen to cooperate with Congress however the rights of the witnesses involved in the committee’s

Mr. Florence was in the passenger seat of his BMW with his wife, when a state trooper then pulled them over for speeding. The officer then runs their names in the database and Mr. Florence appears to have a warrant for an unpaid fine. Mr. Florence was in multiple jails for a week and for each new jail he would be in they would stripe-search him each time. The court decided on a 5-4 ruling that supported the strip-search for people who get arrested. Justin Kennedy who was part of the majority feels that we should always be on the lookout because inmates find any way to smuggle contraband into the prisons. In addition, he also argues all thought they do have metal detectors and pat-downs inmates always find a way to smuggle contraband into prisons.