Walker V Commissioner Of Police Of The Metropolis

This case is one that changed the way the United States Police forces will work forever. Every human in the world has natural born rights. Even people who have been arrested have rights, ‘The rights of the accused’. These rights are the main point of this court case.

At Michael C.’s trial his defense argued when he requested to speak with his probation officer that was the same as him invoking his Fifth Amendment rights (Henry-Mays, 2007). The trial judge denied the defense’s motion to suppress the evidence; however, an appeal was eventually filed with the California Supreme Court, and the court reversed the initial ruling (Henry-Mays, 2007). The California Supreme Court’s premise behind their ruling was the probation officer served as Michael C.’s guardian, and when he requested to speak with his probation officer that was the same as him invoking his Fifth Amendment rights (Henry-Mays, 2007). Since, we understand why the California Supreme Court reversed the initial ruling, let us analyze the Supreme Court’s decision on this case

6. Pretrial detainees are "walking legal contradictions" because “According to the U.S. Constitution, they are innocent until proven guilty. At the same time, by being incarcerated while awaiting trial, they are denied a number of personal freedoms and are subjected to the poor conditions of manu jails” (Gaines

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

The court concluded that the seized of his belongs indeed violated his constitutional rights. The decision made it clear that any evidence obtained during an illegal search and seizure would not be allowed in court. (The Oyez Project, 2014)

The latter case of DPP v Carr (2002) shows many similarities, providing that arrest should and can only be used as a method of last resort, and must not be used for minor offences where the defendant can be identified . In this particular matter, a highly intoxicated Mr Carr was of the belief that police were accusing him of throwing a number of rocks, when this was not the case. This confusion led Mr Carr’s to use offensive language, which provoked the police officer to caution the accused. Mr Carr was then soon after arrested for offensive language because of the continuation of this offence, and also for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duties. The main issue in this matter was whether or not the arrest was lawful, and if so, was it improper. It is important to note that this case was decided before the provisions of LEPRA was passed by the parliament and became valid law meaning the Court had to rely on common law principles to determine its outcome. The arrest for vulgar language in this case was held to be proper because the officer had reasonable suspicion (having witnessed him swearing and

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.

Police officers are given a lot of power because it is needed to help protect citizens and the community. However, police often abuse their power by the over use of force, corruption, sexual misconduct, bias based policing, and failure to maintain police ethics. (Peak, 2011)

In dissenting Justice Owen Roberts felt the facts presented exhibited a clear violation of Constitutional rights. It is he stated “not a case of keeping people off the streets at night, nor a case of temporary exclusion from an area for safety reasons . . . It is the case of convicting a citizen as a punishment to not going into imprisonment in a concentration camp. In addition, if a citizen were forced to obey two laws and obedience

A Senior Louisiana State trooper Steven Vincent, 43, was dead after receiving two gunshots in his head by a gunman, at the side of the road in Bell City, Louisiana, on Monday. Vincent was supposed to help a possibly impaired driver who was also responsible for his death.

Manifesto sees the decision of the supreme court as “clear abuse of judicial power” (1).

In Padilla v. Rumsfeld, an American citizen was arrested in Chicago as he stepped off an airplane. Federal authorities received a tip that he was planning on conducting a terrorist attack using a dirty bomb. However, they did not have enough evidence to arrest him on the charge of terrorism and was subsequently held as a material witness. He was transferred to military custody and was sent to a prison in South Carolina. Over the next several years, his attorney's sued to the federal government alleging that he was being held without due process of law. In 2012, the Supreme Court denied to hear the case. They referred the matter back to US Court of Appeals. They dismissed the case, based upon the fact that the plaintiff's attorneys named Rumsfeld as the defendant. Instead, they should have named the military commander of the prison as the defendant. This means that the government can still hold onto Padilla and that his attorneys will have to re file using the proper procedures. ("Padilla v. Rumsfeld," 2012)

P alleges assault and false arrest. P, a political activist associated with Cop Watch Patrol, was approached by MOS Butrint, Kreckmann and a female officer on public roadway. P alleges that MOS shine a flashlight in his face and P began to record MOS and requested their names and badge numbers. P alleges that one of the MOS demanded P’s identification and when P refused then MOS grabbed P and slammed him against the fence. P alleges that MOS Kreckmann and Butrint grabbed P’s arm and P’s shoulder popped. P alleges that he was transported to the 46th precinct and defendant MOS Lynch was present at the precinct. P alleges that he was strip searched at the precinct and placed in holding cell. P alleges that he was released from custody with two

Parties involved in the case are the Crown and the accused. The crown was represented by Mr C Thompson and his solicitors were the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions. The accused is Neil Allen Baker represented by Mr P Morrissey SC and Ms C Hollingsworth with the solicitors being The Office of Emma Turnball.

This report shall examine the role of the police in the criminal justice system. For background it will detail a brief history of the development of the police then look at the later development of police powers of arrest, detention and of stop and search. Further to this it will examine the role of the police in miscarriages of justice and the effects of these miscarriages on the development of safeguards for people detained by the police. Also the measures taken to prevent further miscarriages of justice such as the development of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to decide if the evidence is there and a prosecution is likely to be successful.