Mos Delprete Case Study

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.”

The reporting party (RP) stated she 5/24/16 arrived at the home at approximately 4:10PM to find her 3 year old daughter Michaela Rojas' right eye scratched and bruised. The RP stated she was no informed by the licensee prior to her arrival that her child had been injured: she had to ask the licensee what happened. The RP was informed that her daughter took a toy away from a male child (name unknown) who retaliated by attacking her daughter. The RP stated the licensee didn't intervene which led to the condition of her daughter's face. The RP doesn't believe the licensee actually observed the incident. The RP stated her daughter appears to have been in a boxing match. Consequently the RP had her daughter examined at the emergency room due to

2. Case Facts: On October 13, 1979, George Schnopps fatally shot his wife of 14 years. The victim and schnopps began having marital problems six months prior, when schnopps became suspicious that his wife was seeing another man. A few days prior to the incident, Schnopps threatened to make his wife suffer. On October 12, 1979 while at work asked a coworker to buy him a gun, telling the worker that he had been receiving threatening phone calls. Schnopps paid his coworker for the gun and ammunition. On the day of the incident, Schnopps told a neighbor he was going to call his wife and have her come pick up some things, and asked if them to keep the youngest child with her so he could talk to with his wife. When the wife went over Schnopps tried to convince his wife to stay with him, in response the wife made some vulgar comments which triggered Schnopps. He then shot her and then shot himself. Shortly after he called the neighbor and told her what had happened and she called the police. The defense offered evidence from friends and coworkers who noticed difference in Schnopps physical and emotional health after the victim had left him. The Commonwealth’s expert

Issues: Throughout the trail process on behalf of the court the inquiry for exceptions to the charge inaccuracy developed regarding instructions. The appellant was seeking a claim based of the defense of his

P alleges temporary loss of his dog and false arrest. P alleges he was holding his dog on a leash on the street when MOS grabbed and threw him to the ground causing P to let go of the leash. P alleges that the dog lunged towards defendant MOS and MOS shot at the dog. P alleges that he was cuffed and taken to the precinct and defendant MOS took his dog to an animal dog as a lost dog. P alleges that he had to pay $280 to retrieve his dog back. P alleges that MOS did not allow his tied his dog up. P alleges that the criminal charges were, later, dismissed. No other information is known about the case. It is unclear what role, if any, Defendant MOS Jeffrey Sisco, played in this

Anthony Cooper was charged under the laws of Michigan State with assault with intent to murder Mundy using a gun that he fired to Mundy and she was shot on her buttock but luckily she survived the attack. Besides the assault charges, he was also charged with possession of a weapon illegally, been under the influence of marijuana and turning to be a habitual offender. Blaine received an offer from the court to dismiss two of the charges and suggest a lenient sentence of 51-85 months for the two remaining charges, in exchange for a guilty imploration. Cooper on good faith admitted his offence and expressed his willingness to accept the offer. However, the respondent rejected the offer proposed by the court after his attorney managed to convince him that the court will not be able to prove his intention to kill Mundy because the victim was shot in her waist. On the first day of the trial, the prosecution proposed a substantially less attractive deal which made respondent reject the plea deal. After the end of the trail, Cooper was found guilty and was subjected to a compulsory least verdict of 185 to 365 months imprisonment. The petitioner filed an appeal at the Michigan Supreme Court based on the allegations that the advice of his attorney to decline the offer was an ineffective counsel. The canton court temporarily permitted the writ and instructed the first plea bargain presented to Cooper be employed. The court of appeals confirmed and the U.S Supreme Court accorded certiorari to review (Wynne & Klein, 2012).

Plaintiff claims false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and assault. Per the Law Department abstract, officers, including Det. Hernandez were executing a search warrant. Officers entered the apartment and brought everyone inside the apartment into the living room including plaintiff and handcuffed. Everyone including plaintiff were searched. Officers recovered marijuana from separately apprehended Jeffrey McCaskill’s person. Plaintiff was transported to the precinct 48 pct. Plaintiff states officers removed her from the holding celling, assaulted by officers, and placed in shackles. Plaintiff allegedly bended Det. Moises Martinez left hand causing injury when he tried to place in shackles. Plaintiff was re-arrest for assault.

P alleges false arrest. P alleges that a manager of a storage facility recovered two firearms for inside the storage unit under her husband’s name, Sabin Jimenez and provided NYPD with Sabin Jimenez’s address. P alleges that MOS defendant David Grieco and 4 other MOS arrived at her home, which was also Sabin Jimenez, home and entered and search searched her home. P alleges that MOS did not recover any firearm from her home however P was arrested. P alleges she remained in custody for approximately over 24 hours and her arrest was voided or the DA’s office declined to prosecute. No other information is known about the case. It is unclear what role, if any, Defendant PO Mayer played in this

Appearing before the Court is 18 year old Marshawn Finley for the sustained allegation of Count 2, PC 242, Assault and Battery, a Misdemeanor. In this matter, the minor got into a verbal fight with one of his fellow roommates at a Group Home over a cigarette. While the fight was being broken up, the minor attempted to punch one of the respondents who were trying to break up the fight three times.

P alleges false arrest for criminal possession of a weapon. P alleges that she was visiting her boyfriend’s apartment when MOS forcibly entered the apartment and searched the apartment. P alleges that P informed MOS that she does not resided at the apartment however she was arrested. Defendant MOS Mayer stated that while on regular patrol he observed Khalid Edwards, whom MOS Mayer had previously arrested at the location, exiting the building. The landlord of the building that previously informed MOS Mayer that he was going to evict Mr. Edwards. MOS Mayer approached and questioned Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards informed MOS Mayer had he was not living in the building however he was staying there. MOS Mayer went to the apartment to verify Mr. Edwards’s

On 05/29/16 at 8:00pm, I was dispatched to 2142 Balford Square East on injury-possible dangers or vicious dog and owner surrender. I arrived at the house and spoke to dog owner Delane Murrell Jr. Mr. Murrell stated that his son was standing in the kitchen when their dog came in the house from the back yard and attacked his son. Mr. Murrell wrote out a statement of facts in regards to the incident. Mr. Murrell also stated that he wanted to surrender the dog. I took pictures of the injuries to Qimari Brown. Qimari has puncture wounds to his right thigh and to the right side of back. Mr. Murrell was unable to show proof of dog license. Mr. Murrell was issued violations for failure to license and failure to control a dangerous dog. Mr.

Police obtained a warrant to gain evidence only regarding the grow operation, not the firearms. A tactical team (tact team) was used due to the speculation of firearms. During the search of the home Constable Manning subdued the plaintiff after the plaintiff put a cooking knife he was using down, the constable kneeled on the plaintiff’s back for an unnecessary period of time that presumably caused the plaintiff’s

When I was present, the plaintiff and defendant were each giving their precedent. The plaintiff’s representative talked James King sent a threatening letter to Judge Seel’s house. In which, he explained descriptive evidence on how King made “threats” to Judge Seel in his argument. James King, on the other hand, was a man with a lot of “problems”. He stated that he was not in the right state of mind when he made the threat to Judge Seel. Also

P alleges excessive force and false arrest. P alleges that he was waiting for a train on the platform when MOS approached and questioned him. P alleges that he produced his identification and informed the MOS that he was going home. P alleges that MOS grabbed, searched, and cuff him tightly causing the cuff to cut into his wrists. P alleges that he was not informed reason for his arrest and was held in cell for approximately 12 hours without food, drink, or access to the bathroom. P alleges that MOS performed an eye scan on him. MOS stated that defendants MOS Mayer and Arquer, responding to a radio run for a fight, were informed by witness that witness observed a group of approximately 5 young men assault a young boy and take the young boy’s

The current issue is whether Maurice has standing to bring his suit to district court. Standing ensures that individuals meet certain qualifications to permit the court to hear their case. Under Article III, there must be a case or controversy present before an individual possesses standing. This requires an injury in fact, a causal connection between the injury in fact and the defendant’s actions, and there must be a way to redress the harm done. The ripeness doctrine ensures that only injury in facts that have already occurred may be heard.