Moot Court Case

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

The U.S. Supreme Court has set forth some important legal guidelines both for the use of deadly force itself, and for the inquiries which must be conducted before such use results in civil liability in a federal civil rights claim(AELE Monthly Law Journal, 2007).

The Supreme Court opinion regarding the actions the officer took in using excessive force was reasonable under the circumstances that Victor Harris had put other drivers and law enforcement officers in danger and concluded that Deputy Scott did not violate the constitutional rights by the use of unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

For the purpose of this report, a visit to the Melbourne Magistrate's Court was made on 22nd March, 2016. On this day, the second day of a four day committal hearing was heard regarding the matter of Omer Cicekdag, presided over by Magistrate Ann Collins.

This case is important to anyone working in law enforcement because of the objective reasonableness standard that it established via the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This case also reversed a four-factor test regarding use of force that was used to test if the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain discipline or was applied with malice to cause harm. The Supreme Court in 490 U.S. 396 (1986) determined that the four factor test did not cover all possible situations and only the decision making skills of a human being can adequately determine the appropriate use of force.

The Tennessee vs. Garner case in 1985 reiterated the unlawful nature of deadly force when used by law enforcement officers. A few years later, the justification of excessive force transpired during the Graham vs. Connor case in 1989. In this case, the concept of "reasonableness" was explored when a police officer followed a man’s car because of personal suspicions. Berry Graham was handcuffed and questioned. In the midst of the arrest, Graham experienced discomfort due to his diabetic condition. He simultaneously acquired several cuts and bruises because of the excessive force being used on him. His pleas were ignored, and he proceeded to file a lawsuit claiming that the force that had been used on him violated his fourteenth amendment rights regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. The court justified the practicality of the case and declared that the officer’s force was appropriate regarding the circumstances of the situation. This decision emphasized the powers that law enforcement officers have regarding the amount of force they must use to execute their duties.

United States was decided by the Supreme Court in 1945. The case involved police brutality were the victim was killed. The federal government prosecuted the police officers after the State of Georgia refused to do so. M. Claude Screws was Sheriff of Baker County, Georgia. Screws knew the victim well, they had been in confrontation over a pistol seized from the victim Robert Hall. On January 29, 1943 Screws had two officers arrest Hall on charges of stealing a tire. The three men drove Hall to the town square and beat him with their fists and a two pound blackjack in front of the courthouse. They did it in plain sight, as residents watched from their homes. The State of Georgia failed to bring charges on the three men, Screws and the other two officers even though repeated suits by the federal government were placed, “a jury in Albany, Georgia, convicted all three defendants of violating Section 242, rejecting the officers’ claim that the beating had been justified in self-defense.”(Watford, 2014) Section 242 was too vague and could not be used to trial because the defendants argued they were not sure which rights it protected. There was a debate between the Supreme Court Justices if the vagueness of Section 242 would lead to a mistrial. The Court’s formation of Section 242 had introduced a “radical revolution” in the balance of power between the National Government and the States. Justice Frankfurter argued that, “because the defendants violated Georgia law by committing murder, this was a purely local crime-enforcement matter that had always been left to the domain of the States”(Watford, 2014) The federal government were now going to be able to make all lawless acts by any police officer a federal crime and Section 242 had survived. The survival of Section 242 meant that the federal government would have a part in fighting the well-known problem of police brutality to African Americans and other minorities, mainly in the South. It was

Hendrickson. In this case Mr. Kingsley was a pretrial detainee at the Monroe County Jail in 2010 when he was asked by an officer to remove a piece of paper concealing the overhead light in his cell and he refused to do so. After being asked by a sergeant Hendrickson a few more time and each time refusing, a lieutenant had his men remove it and more Mr. Kingsley to another cell. On the way to the new cell he didn’t act in the way the guards wanted him to so the yanked him to his feet and hit them on the frame of the bed so bad that he was unable to walk. Once in the cell Mr. Kingsley refused the officers attempt to have the cuffs taking off so Hendrickson“his knee in Kingsley's back and Kingsley yelled at him. Kingsley also claimed that Hendrickson smashed his head into the concrete bunk. After further verbal exchange, another officer applied a taser to Kingsley's back” (“ Kingsley v. Hendrickson”). Mr Kingsley sued Hendrickson and the other jail members involved saying what they did violated his due process rights given to him by the 14th Amendment. He lost the first time but he appealed saying that the jury was given bad instruction on how to judge if the force was excessive or not and what the intent was the U. S. Court of Appeals agreed with him. Mr. Kingsley narrowly won his case with a 5-4 vote in his favor. The Supreme Court said: “The Court held that,

Graham (petitioner) was a diabetic person who was traveling with a friend to a convenience store to get orange juice to counteract his insulin reaction Graham entered the store but quickly left after seeing that many people were already waiting in line. Connor, who was a nearby police officer, observed Graham’s behavior and become suspicious. Graham’s behavior made officer suspicious. Graham returned to his friend’s car and they drove off, but Connor immediately pulled them over for an investigative stop (to determine what they were doing at the store). After questioning, Connor put Graham in handcuffs. Once Connor confirmed that nothing had

The Supreme Court has stated that the calculus of the propriety of an officer’s use of force must include the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second decisions in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving. Officers who use force in the street are judged under the Objective Reasonableness

The jury convicted McCleskey of murder. At the penalty hearing, the jury heard arguments as to the appropriate sentence. Under Georgia law, the jury could not consider imposing the death penalty unless it found beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was accompanied by one of the statutory aggravating circumstances. The jury in this case found two aggravating circumstances to exist beyond a reasonable doubt: the murder was committed during the course of an armed robbery, and the murder was committed upon a peace officer engaged in the performance of his duties. In making its decision whether to impose the death sentence, the jury considered the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of McCleskey's conduct. McCleskey offered no mitigating evidence. The jury recommended that he be sentenced to death on the murder charge and to consecutive life sentences on the armed robbery charges. The court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced McCleskey to

Explain how the legal standard of reasonable suspicion applied to the site administrator’s search of the student’s private property.

In this case, the Supreme Court set a standard for force police officer can lawfully use on a suspect. In reality, Graham, a diabetic patient, had asked Berry, a friend, to drive him to a convenience store to buy orange juice, which he needed to control his condition. Seeing a long line in the store, Graham asked Berry to drive him to a friend's house instead. Based on his suspicion, an officer made an investigative stop and ordered Graham and Berry to wait while he determined what happened in the store. Other officers arrived on the scene, and a force was used, in which Graham sustained multiple injuries.

Qualities that I think I possess as a person are that I am hardworking, ambitious, honest, responsible, and kind. I demonstrate these qualities almost every single day, within my school work and extracurricular activities. I am a part of Murrow’s Public Relations Team which as a student shows great responsibility and I am always trying to take part of activities that are available to me which shows I am ambitious. In the fall of my junior year, I participated in a research program, my project was on inadequate health education in New York City Public School which later transform into educating guidance counselors how to recognize and help teens deal with dating violence. Being in this program was a great learning experience, I first had figure

Positives- "I originally came to the program for court. "However, I learned more than I would have ever expected. I can take feedback, my outlook on life has improved, and I no longer live for today but for tomorrow. I learned that there is more to life than being in jail."