The Case Of Delong V. Erie County

Reasonable people will generally go a long distance to protect their loved-ones. However, most reasonable people would believe that killing someone in order to protect their loved ones would be immoral and harmful. In the case of R v. Buzizi [2013], a man killed another in a supposed effort to protect his cousin. On an early morning in Montréal, the accused’s cousin and the victim ensued in a brawl (Casey). The initial fight was broken up by a third party. A few moments later, the accused, Mr. Buzizi, who saw the initial assault from afar, intervened and pushed the victim (Casey). Then, Mr. Buzizi noticed that the victim had an exacto knife, and that his cousin had a serious wound on his neck (R v. Buzizi, para 24). For fear that the

Police officers including approximately six armed members of the “Special Emergency Response Team” forcibly entered the appellants’ (Bulsey & Anor) house. Bulsey was taken from his bed, placed on the floor, handcuffed and dragged out to the street and later charged with riotous assembly and destruction of a building. In subsequent committal proceedings, the respondent conceded it did not have a case against the first appellant. He was discharged. Bulsey (the first appellant) sued the respondent for damages for trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment). Anor (the second appellant) sued the respondent for damages for assault and false imprisonment. The trial judge dismissed the appellants’ claims with costs, with judgments in favour of the respondent.

Board of County Commissioners of Brevard V. Snyder set a precedent since the Court concluded the comprehensive plan, provides for future land use through gradual and ordered growth, and it is not a literal guide. Thus, Local governments have the discretion to decide that certain land uses should be denied, even if they comply with comprehensive plan guidelines.

The Fourth Amendment protects the police from gaining exorbitant power. However, in Florida v. Bostick and Ohio v. Robinette, the Supreme Court granted the police disproportionate power by granting them the right to conduct warrantless seizures and searches without reason. The rulings of both cases were in emulation of the Fourth Amendment rights.

In summary, on 10/16/15 at 0005 hours Ofc. E. Babczak #293 and I were dispatched to 1830 S. 47th Ct. in regard to a subject violating an order of protection.

The sixth and fourteenth amendment both protect rights having to do with due process and right to counsel.

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting was a Supreme Court decision regarding the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which penalized businesses and proprietors in Arizona that hired illegal immigrants, and required that businesses check the citizenship status of their potential employees using the e-verify system. Various civil rights groups as well as businesses, collectively titled “Chamber of Commerce”, claimed the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act preempted these statutes in the Arizona law. The state law was upheld in 2011.

The Mapp vs. Ohio court case took place in Cleveland Ohio when Dollree Mapp was unlawfully convicted of a felony. On May 23, 1957 at 1:00 P.M., Police appeared at the door of Dollree, who was currently living with her daughter from a previous marriage, and demanded entrance. They believed that she was housing a bombing suspect within her home and that she was part of a gambling crew. Due to the 4th amendment “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (US Const. amend. IV), she demanded to see the warrant and until then they were not allowed entrance. The fourth amendment requires for a search to occur or seizing of possessions, they only can do that to certain aspect is what the warrant initial was for. For the next two and a half hours, the police laid siege to the house. Her lawyer appeared on the scene, and one of the policemen told him that they now had obtained a warrant to search the house, but refused to show it ("Exclusionary Rule"). The officers then forced their way into the house by knocking their doors down and she demanded to see the warrant. Flashing a piece of paper in the air, she snatched it from the police officer and and shoved it down her blouse in a defiant manner.

The Mapps v. Ohio Supreme Court case was issued to protect the American’s right of the Fourth Amendment which protects us from unreasonable searches and seizure. It all started on May 23. 1957 in Cleveland, Ohio. Three Cleveland police officers appeared at the appellant’s residence because they believed that a suspect that was wanted for questioning was believed to be hiding out at that particular residence. They believed the suspect had a connection to the recent bombing that happened, also they believe that there was a large amount of paraphernalia hidden at the house. Miss Delraee Mapp and her daughter lived on the second floor of the two story home. After the cops arrived at her house, they knocked down the door and demanded entrance to her house. Miss Mapp then called her lawyer and would not let the cops in

Ever since 1968 and the Supreme Court case of “Terry vs Ohio” was settled, stop and frisking policies have been used by police everywhere in the United States. However, lately the use of this tactic, especially in New York, has raised the questions of whether or not these stop and frisks are actually helping as well as the question of whether or not these supposed random stops are unbiased. There have been a great number of arguments for the continuation of stop and frisk policies as well as the cease of such tactics to lower the crime rate in cities. In New York, these concerns were first brought to light in the late 1990’s. Throughout this decade, the huge decrease in crime rates had been credited to the fact that NYPD had taken the stop and frisk policies very seriously. However, “near the end of the decade there were repeated complaints of harassment of minority communities” (Gelman). The people of New York were complaining that the NYPD were stopping people and treating people differently based on their ethnic background, which brings up the bigger and more disturbing question; Were the police stopping minorities based on racial bias?

Facts: John Doe was arrested in Marion County in 2000 and convicted of two counts of child exploitation. A recent Indiana statute prohibits most registered sex offenders from using social networking websites, instant messaging services, and chat programs. He was released from prison in 2003 and was required to register as a sex offender under this Indiana law. John Doe, on behalf of a class of similarly situated sex offenders, challenges this law on First Amendment grounds and files suit against Marion County. The district court held that the law implicates Doe's

Riss v. New York is centered around the issue of whether or not the city was liable for the failure to provide special protection to a member of the public. Linda Riss was subject to multiple threats from her attorney and repeatedly requested police protection. She eventually suffered harm when those threats were carried out.

The rule applied in this case states that when a relationship is created between the police and an individual which gives rise to a special duty, the municipality loses its governmental immunity and liability may result. A municipality may assume this relationship by making affirmative actions in an emergency situation. Additionally, failing to fulfill an undertaking to provide police protection does not result in municipal liability unless it is proven that police conduct increased the risk.

Subsequently, this ratio is of great significance as it demonstrates how legal instruments can restrict the potential for arbitrary arrest by holding government agencies accountable for their conduct. This case considers the statement by Scott LG in Dumbell v Roberts &

Under federal civil rights statute and tort negligence, Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 242, government officials can be held liable for damages if the official violates a plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the law (Peak, 2012). For example, if an officer arrests someone unreasonably, the Fourth Amendment guarantees everyone the right to be free of unreasonable seizure and the officer can be charged with misconduct and sued. Also, under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of due process provides grounds for civil rights lawsuits under “special relationship” and “state-created danger” guidelines (Rutledge, 2010). Government officials are held to the duty doctrine, which states that police have a duty to protect the public where they have a special relationship. Neglectful practices not only affect an individual official charged with misconduct, but it can also adversely affect the agency and taxpayers under public relations and monetary damages.