Sherriff Pros And Cons

With the incredible amount of research that went into this book, I find it hard to not be convinced, especially with the vast amount of references and statistics in the book.

In the Campbell v. Jones and Derrick case, a constable (Campbell) sued the parents of two girls for their comments and how they suggested that she was a racist after she conducted a strip search on two 12-year-old girls after a small theft occurred at an inner-city school. The parents pointed out that both the officer and the constable were white, and that they devalued the two girls’ constitutional rights because of their skin colour and low social status. They also suggested that this never would have happened to white children.

In the supreme court Muehler v. Mena case, Mena sued the officers in federal district court for violating her 4th amendments rights. The fourth amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The officers heard that there was that she was affiliated with gang violence and deadly weapons so they searched the house that Mena and others were in. The officers did things like handcuff Mena and the others. They also questioned her about her immigration status. She believed this violated her 4th amendment rights that should protect her from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Mena tried suing the officers in federal district court for violating her Fourth Amendment rights after this. She felt

A lawsuit was filed on March 21, 2016 by Fresno Police Sergeant Cervantes who is suing Fresno Police Department and three other detectives. He states workplace harassment and discrimination due to his Hispanic ethnicity. Further details state, “Sgt. Paul Cervantes accuses Sgt. Tim Tietjen and Detectives Brad Alcorn and Cary Phelps of smearing his reputation with false accusations and spreading rumors that he’s a dirty cop. Tietjen, Alcorn and Phelps are white.”(Lopez, para.2) Such accusations can lead to further tensions, costly legal battles, and government investigations. Sergeant Cervantes seeks unspecified damages, attorney fees for discrimination, retaliation, defamation and malicious prosecution. He also states he has been subjected to such discrimination and harassment since January 2008 to the present. Furthermore, it is not the first time Fresno Police Department has been sued for similar incidences. There is an ongoing problem in the department that needs to be resolve.

Because of the color of her skin, Sandra Bland was unlawfully detained, which was not uncommon in this city. Trooper Encinia, the officer who made the initial traffic stop and arrest, committed an unlawful arrest and failed to correctly do his job, and is now being indicted on a perjury charge because of it. In the video of the traffic stop, Bland repeatedly asks the officer why he was trying to detain and arrest her, but the only response the trooper gave her was “I am giving you a lawful order,” (Hassan and Yan). Though the event was unlawful, it was argued that the incident was not driven by racism. However, Trooper Encinia has worked with some that have committed unlawful acts that were driven by racism: Sheriff R. Glenn Smith.

Once a pardon was approved by His Majesty through the Secretary of the State it couldn't be revoked.6

Facts: Albert Florence was arrested for an outdated warrant. Upon his arrest he was taken to the Burlington County Detention Center where he was subject to a strip search. He remained there for six days and then was transferred to the Essex county facility where he was subjected to another strip search and a visual body cavity search. Florence contends that these searches violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment

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.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) supports this case by stating that the 14th Amendment is “used as a vehicle for lawsuits upholding…important constitutional rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom from unlawful searches and seizures” because the rights of the American people have built the framework for future generations

Hernandez V. Texas is based in the 6th amendment, “guarantees a defendant a right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions”. This case is a very well-known because there was too much of discrimination towards Hispanics. Pedro Hernandez is a resident at Edna, Texas, a Mexican guy who was accused of convicting the murder of Joe Espinosa who was also a resident of the same area. Hernandez was found guilty by an all-white jury going all the way to Supreme Court. Their lawyers argue that it wasn’t fair for them not having a Mexican American as a jury and there was only Americans, because in that way they would take advantage of a Mexican American to do whatever they wanted to do with him. In the 1950’s was when this case occurred and also there was a harsh discrimination to Mexican Americans from the white people at the United States. Mexicans and African Americans were just a “waste of time” for the white people, that’s how the white people thought about them. History, discrimination and how did this issue impact police, court, and corrections are essential things that will be cover.

Monday morning during a press conference, President Donald Trump defended the pardoning of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio. In brief, Arpaio was initially found guilty on the charges of criminal contempt for violating court orders, despite the legal argument that he was not knowingly defying the judge’s orders. Specifically, the order to not detain any suspected undocumented immigrants. These rulings were given after a case in 2013 found him guilty of racial profiling.

On October 31st, 1963, in Cleveland, Ohio, Officer Martin McFadden observed two men standing outside a storefront acting suspiciously. He watched one of the men walk down the street pausing to look in a store window. At the end of the street the man turned around and proceeded to walk back, pausing at the same store window as on his way down. Upon reaching the other man, the two mingled and talked to each other. Officer McFadden witnessed these men do this several times. Officer McFadden concerned the men were “casing a job”, then followed the two men, and watched as they met up in front of Zucker’s Store. At this point, Officer McFadden walked up to the men, identified himself as a police officer, and asked for their names. He asked the first man, Terry to turn around. He frisked him, and, feeling a pistol frame inside Terry 's overcoat, ordered the men into the store. Terry and Chilton were charged with possession of a concealed weapon, and were each sentenced to three-years in prison. The arrest of Terry set in motion a series of lower court cases that ultimately led to the landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The United States Supreme Court decided the case of Terry v. Ohio on June 10, 1968. The question that arises in the Terry v. Ohio case has to do with the Fourth Amendment, specifically the line "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against

In addition to being commander of the military and enforcing laws passed by congress, he can also give federal pardons. “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States… and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. (U.S. Constitution. Article 2, Section 2). The President of the United States has many other duties, like electing supreme court judges.

A pardon is generally a private transaction between the president and an individual. One renowned individual who was pardoned was President Richard Nixon by Gerald R. Ford. Richard Nixon had to resign from office, so he could elude impeachment

During the span of this Infamous case, the miscarriages of justices presented themselves very clearly the law enforcement did do a good job in preserving the rights of Rubin Carter and properly prove his guilt in this case. Carter claims to have had his human and constitutional rights violated by being racially profiled and verbally harassed while being interrogated for murders he did not commit, he was dehumanized and harassed in an attempt to make him confess for a crime he did not commit as well as not have sufficient evidence to support that act that he did commit this crime. Likewise the law enforcement did do their job in finding sufficient evidence that suggested that carted did in fact commit the atrocious act. Al Bello and Dexter Bradley