More handpicked essays just for you.
Excessive force by police essay
Police use of deadly physical force
Excessive force as means of police brutality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Excessive force by police essay
On 04-09-2016 at 0315 hours I noticed a pickup stopped on Main Street about Mulberry Street with the passenger door open. The vehicle then turned onto Mulberry Street and pulled to the side of the road. I made contact with the occupants of the vehicle and was advised by dispatch Jenae Sisson had an active warrant for her arrest. Sisson was placed under arrest and placed into hand restraints which were properly fitting and double locked.
• P alleges excessive force and false arrest. P claims he was at his former girlfriend’s apartment when two MOS arrested. P claims that he was placed in RMP and taken to PSA 6 precinct. P claims that at the precinct several MOS assaulted him causing him to lose vision in one eye. MOS Carlos Sierra was not present at the precinct for the incident.
Inmate Sams was placed into Durango 3 A Pod Cell 13 by Officer Serrano B3280 for Security Segregation pending Disciplinary
An independent investigator hired by the Sherriff’s Department found that Officer Woodward engaged in an unlawful search and invasion of privacy at the time he entered and searched Mr. Masterson motel room. (R at
Although, the police officers had a search warrant they had it for the wrong unit which placed a family in danger and they raided the wrong unit in the first place but then raided the right one where they find the evidence but because it was found illegally the judge dismissed all of the evidence against Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins because of the Exclusionary Rule. Now the reason the evidence was dismissed was because there was no specific address on the warrant and this means that an officer cannot just search every unit in the multi-family house until they find evidence against the
MOS Wesolowski was driving MOS Diana Pichardo and observed P in the outside courtyard. MOS Wesolowski had previously arrested P for trespass at the location and had knowledge that P was issued a NYCHA Trespass Notice. MOS Wesolowski states that he called
On 3/17/17 at 1005 hrs, I was dispatched to the PD lobby in reference to harassing phone calls. Upon my arrival, I made contact with the complainant Victoria Wert and her boyfriend, Bradley Palmer. Wert advised Palmer’s ex-girlfriend, Alexus Smith has been texting her since 9/27/16 to 3/17/17, during this time Wert advised she did not text her Smith once, and her text messages are rude and unwanted. Wert advised she did not receive any concerning messages until 3/17/17 at 0930 hrs.
The Majority of the court 's decision includes McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. The court had to decide in this case whether the seriousness of an offence or knowing that one might be a threat to public safety can be a justification to stop anyone without having solid evidence against them. The court stated that both Mr. Clayton and Mr. Farmer were guilty of carrying concealed weapons in a public place. The police had the right to search them even though their car didn’t match the description described by the 911 caller because the officers have to be consistent with their duty towards public safety and act in accordance to the seriousness of the
United States, an officer arrested and searched the accused because the officer believed that there was a warrant out for the accused. The admissibility of the evidence was at question. However, the court ruled that evidence found is admissible if the officer is acting out in good faith on an erroneous warrant. In our case Officer West was acting in good faith because he was acting on an erroneous warrant. It will be argued that Officer West was negligent toward the facts that were on the warrant, the description of the weight.
Fourth rights and had legal probable cause to search and arrest
On 01-02-2016 at 0200 hours I was dispatched to booking in reference to a subject with a warrant. Upon arrival I took custody of Jeremy Freeman, who dispatch advised had an active warrant through Poplar Bluff Municipal Court. Freeman was processed and lodged at the Butler County Justice Center awaiting bond. WARRANT INFORMATION: Agency: Poplar Bluff Municipal Warrant #:
This is a criminal case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes. Hayes did not give consent to be taken to the police station and be detained plus fingerprint. Therefore, Hayed Fourth Amendment rights were violated and the conviction was overturned. Fact of the case: In the 1980’s there was a series of rape and burglary that happened in Punta Gorda Florida.
Depending on the context, search warrants are a controversy for example; when entering a residence with the correct procedures that the law enforcement officer makes. To get a warrant, officers need consent and signed paper from the judge and with the state attorney. Overall there is the fourth amendment that safeguards the protection of the people and the right to issue a warrant with probable cause. In nature, there are certain requirements of a search warrant and some denies that right to search freely.
"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". The 4th amendment was made based on the Founding Fathers experience with the Kings agents and the all purpose rit of assistances that they used abusively. Without the 4th amendment, we would be at the will of the police because they could come into our household, search anything and take whatever they want. "A reasonable expatiation of privacy" the 4th amendment secures the protection of the people
The side of this debate that supports less strict criteria for warrantless search of the digital information of cell phones is law enforcement, which is made up of various entities that track American citizen’s data to keep the country safe. Government lawyers and supports of warrantless cell phone searches argue that “searching a cell phone is no different than search other items commonly found on a person at the time of arrest.” In addition, they point out that prohibiting these searches would hurt prosecutors’ chances of proving guilt in drug trafficking cases because of the widespread use of cell phones by drug dealers in order to move their products. At surface level it seems that the Court has just required police to get warrants before checking cell phones, but the ruling could lead to questions about the NSA’s capacity to conduct warrantless search on American’s data. Government institutions, primarily the NSA, have used “section 215 of the Patriot Act” to analyze American’s phone data, but this ruling could show that the Court is attempting to better protect the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens by stopping
