Research Assignment : R. V. Grant

Whether a law enforcement officer was justified in acting in the absence of a warrant depends on the “totality of circumstances.” The United States Supreme Court uses a “careful case-by-case” approach to determine whether circumstances rose to the required level of exigency. Recognized exigent circumstances that justify warrantless entry may include, but are not limited to: entering to provide emergency aid to someone inside, pursuant to an immediate threat to officer safety, in “‘hot pursuit’ of a fleeing suspect,” “to put out a fire and investigate its cause,” and to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence of a serious crime. While circumstances that present the requisite exigency to justify a warrantless search differ, “in each

The courts found that If section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada infringes or denies the rights and freedoms guaranteed by ss. 2(a), 7, 12, 15, 27 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is s. 251 justified by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and therefore not inconsistent with the Constitution Act, 1982?

A detention is reasonable when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, under the totality of the circumstance, provide an objective basis for suspecting the particular person detained may be involved in criminal activity. (People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224.) As such, an investigatory stop based on mere curiosity, rumor or hunch is an unlawful seizure, even though the officer may be acting in good faith. (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629.) Nonetheless, reasonable suspicion cannot be justified after the fact by evidence of criminal activity uncovered during the course of the detention. (People v. Gale (1973) 9 Cal.3d 788.) Moreover, mere proximity cannot be enough to create reasonable suspicion because proximity

Champion, D.J. (2009). Leading U.S. supreme court cases in criminal justice: Briefs and key terms. Upper Saddle river, NJ: Prentice Hall.

-Also, the attorney general could request, before the week ended, that the implicated be detained for up three weeks. The detainees were not allowed to consult a lawyer, and many were held sequestered. (Pg. 167)

Two years later, the charge was dropped by the court, and the judge ruled that based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the police had conducted an unreasonable search of the students locker. Even though the student was guilty, the court had to drop the charge because it was violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” (Nelson Education, 2008) The Charter did an effective job in protecting the student’s legal rights even though the student was guilty.

At about 1620 hours I read Inmate Dibbern his read their Miranda Rights rights from my standard issue MCSO Miranda Rights card. When asked if he understood his rights, he said, "Yes." When asked if he would answer my questions he answered, "Yes."

At approximately 1715 hours, I read Inmate Olson his Miranda Rights through my MSCO standard issued Miranda Rights card. I asked his if he understood his rights he stated "Yes". I also asked if he would answer my questions voluntarily he stated "Yes". I then proceeded to ask him what happened in the bathroom of Durango 7 and he stated " I can’t take being in jail, I rather die than be in here".

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.

An analysis of history and the contemporary exercise of police practices suitably describe the experiences of many black men when dealing with law enforcement officers. Before the due process revolution that occurred in the 1960s, the rights of many back men were abused on a daily basis. These practices continue regardless of a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court that was geared towards limiting the discretion of police officers. Through the ruling, the Supreme Court sought to promote the legal rights of black American as compared to any other court in the judicial system (Maclin, 2012, p.1275). In light of these issues, the Terry v. Ohio lawsuit was filed after John W. Terry, the petitioner was stopped and frisked by an officer after the law enforcement personnel suspected him of casing a store for a possible robbery. After the police officer approached Terry for questioning, he decided to search him first, which contributed to numerous concerns regarding searches based on the Fourth Amendment. The case represents the need for a boundary between a reasonable belief and probable suspicion based on coherent facts.

Fortunately, within the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution, the Fourth Amendment exists, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures (Gardner & Anderson, 2016). The Fourth Amendment gives citizens the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d., n.p.). If this right is violated because law enforcement officers did not follow the correct procedure of obtaining a warrant that describes the person or items that will be seized, the search and seizure must be deemed unconstitutional (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). In the case of the defendant, it is evident that search and seizure misconduct of fellow officers occurred that violated the constitutional rights of the

R v Grant is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9, section 10, and section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court created a number of factors to consider when determining whether a person had been detained for the purpose of sections 9 and 10 of the

Specify the reasons for preventative detention, and describe the forms of release from jail pending trial.

The courts found that the detention was not in fact, penal, but regulatory and agreed with the lower court. “The mere fact that a person is detained does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that the government has imposed judgment” (Zalman, 2011).

There is essential distinction between “preventive detention” and “punitive detention”. The concept behind the preventive detention is not to punish a person for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it. The basis of detention is the satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of the likelihood of the detenu acting in a manner similar to his past