Our Firm 's Suit On Behalf Of Client Michael Ndichi Essay

The legal question in which the U.S. Supreme Court resolved in this case was whether or not statements made by an individual under custodial police interrogation are admissible against him. Additionally, the focus was also placed on the issue of whether procedures that assure the individual is granted his privilege (5th Amendment) not to be compelled to incriminate himself

When and how officers use discretion is not always seen in a positive light by some members of the community; for example some officers feel that an assault between two blacks is an acceptable way for them to handle disputes, therefore there would be no need to invoke the criminal process (Goldstein, 1960). An officer’s negative appraisal of minorities is one of the reasons they are so over-represented in the criminal justice system. If officers are making the decision not to invoke the criminal process when dealing with white upper class males, but in most cases invoking the criminal process when dealing with members of the minority community, that is a violation of due process. In that case, the net affect of police discretion is negative.

One of the main powers law enforcement officers carry is the authority to make citizens involuntarily give up their rights. Most people when confronted by police get mild to moderate panic reaction, can become nervous or anxious, and do as much as possible to limit the time spent with the officer. Due to the difference in power between a citizen and a police officer, citizens often unknowingly, give up their constitutional rights when an officer acts tough or bullies them (Guidelines?1).

Law enforcement in today’s time is known for discrimination and brutality. However, there are times when the police are known to even wrongfully arrest, try, and convict those who have not committed any crimes. Even though law enforcement and the legal system may seem like a secure and infallible entity/force, those that serve the justice system are not always serving justice. The case of Sean K. Ellis is a case of mistaken arrest. Ellis was arrested for the murder of a Boston police officer, convicted, and approximately served 22 years in prison for a crime that he did not commit. The topics of racial bias, credibility of witnesses, exclusion/lack of evidence, and police corruption, are the some of the factors that affected Ellis’s case.

The Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable seizures under the fourth amendment. The stop of the individual by the law enforcement does not constitute an unlawful seizure because it was reasonable within the meaning of Heien and therefore suppression is not warranted. Section A evaluates that the initial bicycle stop was reasonable because the officer reasonably thought appellant violated the California Vehicle Code. Section B identifies that even if the initial detention was unconstitutional the doctrine of the fruit of the

Everybody, from whores to philosophers, is influenced by the lead or unfortunate behavior of cops. Rationalists can help by raising doubt about standard moral statutes and giving tests or strategies to assessing choices, however, what is effortlessly comprehended in the classroom may wind obscured or more entrapped in the field. A couple of destinations of overseers who oversee law usage ethics are to hone personnel to the reliable estimations of their work to demonstrate proper lingo to recognize and assess ethical conflicts and expressive norms for sound reasoning to apply the last items all the more generally to broader good speculation.

Search and seizure Supreme Court cases, such as Terry v. Ohio and Mapp v. Ohio, allowed individuals to protect their rights of law enforcement officers from searching into property without a warrant. A search and seizure must be conducted correctly exactly how the 4th Amendment is presented. On the other hand, it is very important for the law enforcement to intrude and stop a potential threat to harm society. For instance, it is different if a treacherous terrorist was hiding in a neighborhood with armed weapons. However, national security takes it granted with citizen’s rights without a probable cause or to stop and frisk. Some law enforcement officers assume and overpower citizens without thinking about their rights. The National security,

a. As New York Times reporter Erwin Chemerinsky notes, “In recent years, the court has made it very difficult, and often impossible, to hold police officers and the governments that employ them accountable for civil rights violations. This undermines the ability to deter illegal police behavior and leaves victims without compensation.”

Search and Seizure is an ongoing topic of debate and the rules involving search and seizure are constantly changing with the new advances in technology as the years move on. Everyone has the right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution, but how that right is implemented and what it covers is often brought up in the Court of Appeals. Many questions are brought up when it comes to search and seizure and whether the search and or seizure were conducted legally. We have to be clear that a search and seizure can deal with the specific person being searched or their property being searched. Some of the questions often brought up when dealing with search and seizure include: Has a search and or seizure occurred? Did the

Given the times in which we live, one could reasonably presume that agencies like the NSA, and legislation like 2001’s Patriot Act have a monopoly on usurping the Fourth Amendment – but, he or she would be wrong. In fact, the most urgently infringement of Americans’ constitutional indemnities against unlawful searches and seizures, is a policing practice known as “pretextuality.” It is a doctrine of law enforcement that has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on multiple occasions, but none more so than in the 1996 case Whren vs. United States. It is my position that what is done by the Supreme Court, is most effectively undone by the Supreme Court; and so I advocate that the Whren decision be definitively overturned, and its underlying doctrine

When the client loses the lawsuit, the loss recorded depends on how the loss was originally reported. If the loss were previously recorded as an accrual, the actual amounts are netted to the accrual and the remaining losses are recognized, if not fully accounted for previously. The details of the transaction are completely footnoted in the financials.

Being stopped and interrogated by police in association with a lawbreaking is a disturbing encounter for most any individual. As long as the officer is executing his job in the appropriate manner, however, there is no intrusion of the accused's rights. In fact, police are protected from suit for the implementation of their jobs except deliberate, irrational behavior is shown (Geoffrey, 2004). The fact of simple carelessness, the malfunction to perform the assigned task with appropriate attention, is not sufficient to generate accountability. Immunity consequently means that in the typical police- defendant dealings, the accused cannot pursue litigation against the police. Civil rights solutions factor into the reality for intentional police

Law enforcement provides society with an array of invaluable services that cannot be overlooked. Law enforcement officers place themselves at considerable risk in order to protect the safety of others. Moreover, these individuals are not prompted by financial incentives to enter this hazardous line of work, but are instead motivated by the personal rewards and satisfaction that emanate from advancing the interests of the commonwealth. However, in spite of their vast contributions, law enforcement officers are capable of error and behaving unethically. For example, an officer may accidently commit an infraction due to an oversight, or they may knowingly abuse their position of authority. Thus, various protections have been afforded to the public as a defense against the violation of their rights. The fourth amendment functions as a deterrent against police impropriety by establishing the conditions under which an officer can perform a search. Overall, the vehicle search that was conducted in the scenario was illegal; thus, any of the evidence that was seized would be inadmissible in a court of law.

Court systems have checks and balances in place to limit the possibility of racial discriminations, such as the jury system; yet police officers who have rights over those of citizens are able to implement their own racial biases in their day to day jobs. The Netflix documentary, 13th, directed by Ava DuVernay, highlights the fact that, despite the number of laws incorporated into US law to limit racial discriminations, there are still plenty of loopholes that allow the issue to remain relevant. While the solution may not be to remove the police department in its entirety, evidence does suggest that police officers tend to show racial prejudices that need to be reformed. Policies that increase powers given to police officers without checks and balances from a court allow for their personal racial biases to show. In this paper, we will investigate those special rights, mainly focusing on pullovers while driving and stops and frisks laws of New York.

In today’s society oppose to law enforcement being the protector they are the threat. This is an ethical dilemma I would like to identify solutions for. I believe within my study of forensic psychology this will provide some reasons to why some people in law enforcement respond in discriminatory ways. African Americans and Caucasians has encountered violent racial actions between one another. , but these encounters has become more prevalent with authority and citizen sin 2015 to now. We want to think of law enforcement as our protectors again and not people whom we need to be protected from.