Officer Timothy Oddsen Case Study

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.

Police brutality and corrupt cop issues have increasingly risen. The problems posed by the illegal exercise of police power, which is an ongoing reality for individuals of a disfavored race, class, or sexual preference. There are innocent people beaten or put in jail or prison. They can be helped, but the ones beyond help are dead. There are good cops and there are bad cops. Under the law, article 7 states:

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.

2) Based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer pulled Mr. Hightower based on unreasonable suspicion and no probable cause. Mr. Hightower from Metropolis drove a late model Corvette at around 3 am down Main Street does not arouse suspicion to a reasonable person. In addition, the arresting officer did not witness Mr. Hightower commit any traffic violation or any crime and it is legal to drive around the city at 3 am. The officer violated Mr. Hightower’s Fourth Amendment right of protection of unlawful

We have seen time without number when police have been found to violate people’s charter rights and freedoms. The charter provides for three kinds of actions to persons whose rights have been denied.

Due process is listed under the constitution in which guarantees an individual a fair proceeding. More specifically, the fifth and fourteenth amendment of the U.S. constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrary and unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights. According to Rochin v. California, the U.S. Supreme court ruled the evidence against Mr. Rochin unconstitutional and thus not a fair proceeding. The Officers coerced evidence from the defendant without a legitimate authorization and used the tainted evidence in trial. Reviewing the case certainty reveals the importance of following proper proceeding when obtaining meaningful evidence. One little violation can disrupt the entirety of the case. Thus, police training is important in acting appropriately to that of constitutional

Reasoning: The Court further held that the officers' questioning of the defendants about their reasoning for being at the event during their detention did violate the Fourth Amendment. The officers did not have reasonable suspicion to question the four defendants. Moreover, the Court had held repeatedly that mere police questioning did not constitute a

Officer Jones a veteran police officer with the Smithville police department, was acting on an anonymous tip of drug activity at the housing project. Therefore, this gave Office Jones the inclination to proceed to the housing project and wait on said subject to appear. Once Officer Jones had seen the suspect he then stopped the suspect, searched him, and found illegal drugs on his person. Officer Jones shouldn’t have relied on a preliminary hunch. The Stop and Frisk of a suspect have to come with reasonable suspicion that a crime is or has been committed. The constitutional amendment that Officer Jones violated was the 4th Amendment, which clearly declares that a person has ‘‘The rights to be secured in their persons, their houses, their

As Application Support Center Manager, Officer Thomas Goetsch provides great customer service and a professional image that directly reflects upon the service. He responds to any client inquiry that they may have in their immigration process. He supports a team of ASC contractors that begin the process with obtaining the applicant’s biometrics.

Henry Magee, 28, said he thought the officers who broke through his door were robbers and he acted in self-defense to protect his pregnant girlfriend and two children. The facts of the article were that the police were acting on a tip from an informant that led them to believe Magee had more than a dozen marijuana plants in his home along with illegal firearms. When the warrant was signed off, nine deputies broke down the door to Magee’s mobile home and set off a flash-bang grenade, and Magee began firing away as they barged through the door. One of the deputies, Adam Sowders, fell dead. A question towards this article is did the police violate Magee’s fourth amendment rights? I don’t think he did because the exceptions to the amendment could lead to many outcomes, like destruction of evidence and fleeing the scene. But, the one thing that I do agree with in this case is how Magee is justified. I think the defendant had the right to defend himself, his family and his property. With or without a warrant, if they can smash through people’s doors without announcing and identifying themselves, then how is anyone supposed to act in defense for their family? Hypothetically, if Magee did not own any weapons and someday robbers kicked his door in, with his family

Early one morning in the summer of 2005, Officer Brian McPherson deployed his Taser against Carl Bryan during a traffic stop for a seatbelt infraction. Bryan asserted that excessive force was used against him and it was in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Officer McPherson appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court decision was affirmed due to the circumstances favoring Bryan. Officer McPherson’s use of the Taser was unconstitutionally excessive and a violation of Bryan’s clearly established rights. Bryan was charged with resisting and opposing an officer in the performance of his duties in. Bryan was tried on this violation, but following a hung jury, the state

Officer Hoy has a note attached to this category. Sgt. Warfield complimented him on his teamwork efforts with members that he works with. He was also complimented on his skills in critical incidents, as he is on the Durango Police Department Swat team. Officer Hoy joined the Swat team this year and is on the entry team. His joining of the Swat team shows his dedication and teamwork to the Durango Police

In the case of Grusendorf v. City Of Oklahoma the defendant, a firefighter trainee, was seen smoking a cigarette off duty and was seen by another employee and was terminated. He returned with the factor that within the Fourteenth Amendment his Due Process rights were violated under the Due Process Clause. The federal court rejected his claim and upheld his termination. Public safety employers have a legitimate interest in the health of their employees. This standard is viewed within the well being of police

The Police Bill of Rights entails that an officer being questioned on issues that could cause disciplinary action for corrective reasons, be done at a sensible time and place that is chosen by investigative officials. It gives protection for an officer that has been accused of misusing their power and includes 10 days for cooling off prior to being questioned. Protection is given by the US Constitution, which is the right given to all citizens to prevent them from incriminating themselves (Hager, 2015).

Police officers possess a number of rights, especially constitutional right. The State can regulate some of the officers freedom of speech, but the restriction has to be reasonable. These regulations on officers can be found to be unreasonable infringe on the officers free speech. An example of regulation that was unreasonable infringed is when a Chicago police office ruled that nothing can be said from officers that is derogatory against the department. A department can not just randomly choose to regulate officers right to free speech, but it has to be for a reason like if officers make statement that affects the department such as leaking information about an ongoing investigation, or making false statement.