Officer Mcpherson V. Brian Mcpherson

This case is one that changed the way the United States Police forces will work forever. Every human in the world has natural born rights. Even people who have been arrested have rights, ‘The rights of the accused’. These rights are the main point of this court case.

The research topic we have chosen to research is Tasers. The use of Tasers has been a very controversial topic in the last few years. Reporters, doctors, and human rights groups have all expressed concern that police officers will use a Taser in situations when no weapon is required and concern has also been expressed over if the Taser is really a less-lethal option. No one claims the use of Tasers to be risk-free but studies have found them comparatively safe. We believe that people opposed to Tasers ignore a body of the reports showing the technology is safe and effective. The research question we hope to answer is: Is the deployment of a Taser a safe and viable

The Court of Appeals reversed and filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: "(1) apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; (2) deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a

Garner 471 U.S. 1 (1985) that under the Fourth Amendment a Police Officer could not legally seize, take, a potential suspect’s life through the use of deadly force unless circumstances warranted it. It was deemed that only if the officer had probable cause to believe the defendant had committed a violent crime, was a danger to the community, or a threat to the officer would the officer have the authority to utilize deadly force to stop the suspect. The United States Supreme Court further decided that the Tennessee statute was invalid in regards to giving Officer Hymon authorization to use deadly force in the instance of Edward Garner. The United States Supreme Court stated that the Tennessee statute originated from a time when many more crimes were punishable by death than are in present times. Thus it could no longer be interpreted literally in light of changes to the criminal justice system. Due Process for all citizens is protected by the precedent set in this case; stating firmly, as it does, that only in instances where an officer has probable cause to believe a violent crime has occurred or has the potential to happen may said law enforcement officers use deadly force to deter, or prevent it while apprehending suspects. As stated under the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights each and every American has protection from unjust

Working for a law enforcement agency one must be able to make split second decisions regarding the use of force. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) established the standard of “objective reasonableness” for law enforcement (Graham v. Connor, 1989). This case was heard by the Supreme Court after a diabetic man (Graham) was forcibly detained by law enforcement after he was suspected of a crime.

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,

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

The leading case on use of force is the 1989 Supreme Court decision in Graham v. Connor. In Graham, the plaintiff Graham, a diabetic, asked his friend to drive him to a convenience store to purchase orange juice to counteract the onset of an insulin reaction. Upon entering the store and seeing the number of people ahead of him, Graham hurried out and asked his friend, Berry, to drive him to another friend’s home instead. Defendant, Officer Connor became suspicious after seeing Graham hastily enter and leave the store, followed Berry’s car, and made an investigatory stop ordering the pair to wait while he found out what happened in the store. Berry tried to explain that his friend was having an insulin reaction, but Officer Connor was not convinced. When Connor returned to his patrol car to call for backup, Graham got out of the car, ran around it twice and sat down on the curb, where he passed out.

At final, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s ruling. The Court said that all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force whether deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop or any other seizure of a citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, rather than the under a substantive due process. The court also stated that a seizure occurs when a law enforcment officer terminates a free citizen’s movement by a means interntionally applied. An officer may sieze a person in many ways including: traffic stops, investigative detentions, and arrests are all seizures under the 4th amendmet. To seize a person, an officer may yell, “stop”, handcuff, a baton, or a firearm can be used to comply the subject with officer orders.

In establishing a § 1983 claim the claimant must first determine which constitutional right was violated. In this case, Dave Douglas, Taylor Reveley, and George Walkers claims fall under the Fourth Amendment because they have not been arrested or detained for pretrial. Each plaintiff will argue that the police officers seized them unreasonably and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. First, the claimant must establish that the government actor was acting under “the color of law.” In this case, the police officers were acting in their official capacity as on-duty cops. HotCop, as a possible contractor with law enforcement may also operate under the color of law and therefore be subject to suit as well. This will be addressed further later in the memo. Each potential plaintiff and the possible defenses to their claims is addressed below.

On the night of October 3rd, 1974 at approximately 10:45 p.m. Edward Garner was shot by Officer Hymon in an attempt to stop him from escaping a crime scene. Garner died on the operating table due to the gunshot wound on the back of his head. His crime was burglary and he was found with a mere ten dollars and a purse. The case was argued on October 30th, 1984 and a decision was made on March 27th, 1985. The father of Edward Garner believed his son’s constitutional rights were violated by the defendants Officer Hymon, the Police Department, and the Mayor of the city of Memphis. With a 6-3 decision, the Justices’ decided that Officer Hymon was acting justly under the fourth amendment that states that deadly force is constitutional as long as it is “reasonable”. I believe Officer Hymon was acting in good faith and simply fulfilling his duty to protect the public and stop criminals from escaping punishment.

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

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.

Mr. Moran’s pre-marital agreement with Ms. Moran is enforceable under Oregon law because Ms. Moran voluntarily entered into the premarital agreement and because the agreement was not unconscionable when it was executed. In Oregon, a premarital agreement can only be rendered non-enforceable if the party seeking to do away with the agreement is able to prove that they had not voluntarily entered into the agreement or that the agreement had been unconscionable at the time it was signed. 11 O.R.S. § 108.725 (2015). In the case at hand, neither of these requirements has been met, and thus the lower court’s judgement for Ms. Moran should be reversed and judgement rendered for Mr. Moran.

Taser International, Inc. v. Ward, Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, May 13, 2010