preview

Mr Pitt Case Study

Decent Essays
Relevant Facts
Mr. Pitt was arrested on the front yard of his home while mowing the yard. The area being mowed contained a city-owned fire hydrant and a city-owned tree. The strip was between the street and the sidewalk. Other residents sought city permission to remove or alter the trees on the strip. Officers Scully and Mulder noticed Mr. Pitt mowing this area of land and talking to himself. Officers exited the cruiser and approached Mr. Pitt from behind. They noticed a weapon belt but no weapon. While Mr. Pitt mowed, he turned and faced officers. At this time the officers noticed an indistinct object hanging from the weapon belt. As Mr. Pitt left the mower in compliance with officer’s orders, the officers observed a shining, freshly sharpened
…show more content…
The knife was visible when the man stood. The object was partially visible but concealed when sat upon. The court held that a weapon is concealed if an ordinary person coming into contact with the carrier is not able to easily discern or observe the weapon in ordinary daily interactions. Charron at 1. The court reasoned that the knife was visible enough for the ‘plain view doctrine’ to apply. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for new trial. In this case, the officers came into contact with Mr. Pitt and were unable to discern the weapon upon approach. Mr. Pitt would argue that the weapon belt was discernible the entire duration of the interaction. However, the weapon belt being discernible is not enough. If the weapon is not observable throughout the ordinary interaction it is considered concealed. The hatchet was concealed because the weapon was not observable in the interactions between Mr. Pitt and the…show more content…
The defendant’s mother owned the property, where he removed a gun from his belt and threw it under a bush as he fled from approaching police. The court found that a public easement gives the right to the public of freedom of use and should be enjoyed without any infringing action by the owner of the freeholding land. Marrow at 11. In this case, the interaction occurred on a public easement. The interaction occurred on the strip between the sidewalk and street. The strip includes a city-owned fire hydrant and a tree that was paid for and owned by the city. It is necessary that a resident seek permission to cut down any tree. The land is a public easement because it has city-owned trees and fire hydrants. The police officers were on the public easement in the interaction with Mr. Pitt. Mr. Pitt may argue that, because he takes care of the land and is the owner of the freeholding land, it is not a public easement. However, the city has access to the land and Mr. Pitt must comply with the public’s right to freedom of use of the easement. The court would find that the interaction between the officers and Mr. Pitt occurred on a public
Get Access