Was Speelman’s substansive and procedural due process violated, as well as her right to a preliminary injunction?…
Anna Garcia Was a hispanic lady of age 38, and suffered of diabetes. One day the police got a phone call from Anna´s neighbor reporting her death. The call came in at early in the morning and police arrived shortly after. Anna Garcia was found dead in a hallway. She was faced down. Doug Anna's neighbor was recently involved in a romantic relationship with Anna but she ended the relationship. Alex and Anna were married, and got a divorce. Alex saw Anna the night before. He went to her house to talk about some paperwork. Along with Alex was his new wife Erica piedmont. She was sitting in the car, it was parked in front of Anna's house. Anna's best friend, Lucy Leffingwell said that she had been in the hospital.…
Georgia v. Randolph is a landmark case pertaining to the search of a private resident without a search warrant where one resident gives law enforcement personnel consents to conduct a search and the other member objects. This particular case involved a married couple Scott and Janet Randolph, who were having marriage problems. Janet decided to leave Scott taking their son with her to Canada (Wood 2007 para 1). After being gone for a little over a month she and the child returned to the same residents where Scott had remained. One day shortly after her return, they got into an argument and Scott left the resident with their child in fear that she would take off again.…
Facts: In June of 1999 Jessica Gonzalez had her husband served with a protective order during divorce proceedings. The protective order stated the husband must stay 100 feet from the estranged wife and 3 young female children. It allowed for preannounced visitations and predetermined weekend custody. On several occasions the husband picked the children up without notice returning them late in the evening. Jessica reported each incident to the Castle Rock Police Department. The officers failed to respond to the calls telling Jessica to wait until the children were returned. The last time the children were taken without notice Jessica went to the police…
Facts of the Case: The Appellant Miriam Leverington, a nurse at Memorial Hospital (Appellee 1) in Colorado Springs, was pulled over in December of 2008 by Officer Duaine Peters (Appellee 2). During the course of the stop Leverington told the police officer that she hoped he was never her patient. Officer Peters replied, "I hope not too, because maybe I'll call your supervisor and tell her you threatened me." The Police officer did in fact, within 5 days after the incident, report Leverington’s comment to Memorial Hospital. Memorial Hospital took disciplinary action against her for making the comment to the officer. They disciplined her by terminating Leverington from her job as a cardiac nurse there. Leverington sued the City (Memorial) and Officer Peters for violating her rights to free speech. Leverington claimed that the officer had been rude and that she was just trying to communicate she hoped that she never had to interact with him again. Lower courts dismissed her case stating that her first amendment rights had not been violated. The decision went to appeals.…
In summary, A Orange County 52 year old woman, Connie Barraclough, was arrested in Newport Beach. She exclaimed that the Police Department violated her women’s civil rights. The woman was reportedly booked in a jail where men are processed to be held in jail. Connie was recently drinking earlier that night at an Angels game in Anaheim, the pursuer who arrested Connie reported that she was driving under the influence and arrested her. This all started when Connie realise she was not processed in the correct place for holding. She was actually sent to Orange County Jail in Santa Ana, because of a mishap of not having a female jailer to be “available” to process her. This resulted Connie being held for 12 hours in Orange County Jail rather than Newport Beach Jail which could resulted a…
In the state of Arizona there are four types of protective orders ("Law.arizona.edu", n.d.). An emergency order can be requested when the life or health of a person is determined to by in immediate danger. The statute that governs this order is A.R.S. § 13-3624(C). It can be requested by a law enforcement officer and it is not required that the plaintiff be present. This type of order is limited to parties who meet specific relationship guidelines. An injunction against harassment, governed by A.R.S. § 12-809, has no relationship limitations; it is used to prevent acts of harassment which are not classified as domestic violence.…
Jasanoff, Maya. “The Other Side of Revolution: Loyalists in the British Empire.” The William and Mary Quarterly 65 (2008): 205-232.…
Justice Black also believes the command that no unreasonable searches or seizures be allowed is too little to infer such a large decision. With these differences aside Justice Black feels that along with previous court decisions that the "Fourth Amendment's ban against unreasonable searches and seizures is considered together with the Fifth Amendment's ban against compelled self-incrimination, a constitutional basis emerges which not only justifies, but actually requires the exclusionary…
The court decided that whenever an officer restrains the freedom of someone to walk away,…
This ruling was appealed and eventually overturned by the Court of Appeals finding that this case violated the 4th amendment protections, finding that the use of deadly force is an absolute seizure of one's person and is subject to the same necessary reasonableness requirements. This finding is extremely important as it changes a legal standard for all police in the United States after the Supreme Court hears the case and delivers its affirmation of the Appeals Court response in 1985. Since 1985 police have followed the guidelines in law that resulted from the Supreme Court findings. The fleeing felon laws would now require the felon to be “violent” felon which posed a direct threat to the public or other police. The officer would be required to be able to articulate why he or she believed this suspect to be a threat and why they were believed to be a violent felon. The high court also found that no factual evidence existed at that time to support the argument that the threat of deadly force against fleeing felons would result in less fleeing felons and more successful arrests. The court found this policy is only more likely to end in deceased suspects without the benefits of criminal justice…
As said by the Fourth Amendment, " the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against an unreasonable search 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 be seized." In simplest terms the Fourth Amendment says that all searches are to be conducted under authority of a warrant( Barany). Many times this amendment is violated which can result in the dismissal of a case, release of a guilty suspect, or the arrest of an innocent individual that was not properly been given his or her rights. In this paper topics involving the violations and exceptions of the many prongs of the Fourth Amendment including: probable cause, Terry vs. Ohio, exceptions to warrantless search and seizures, racial profiling, rights we are awarded, and the Miranda Warning. The Fourth Amendment has many off shoots and I will try to cover the basics, so that you as a reader can more thoroughly understand your rights and privileges as well as the rights that you do not have in many circumstances.…
For instance John has been driving while being intoxicated and gets caught up for breaking the signal. A search conducted by the police finds illegal handgun being present in the car’s trunk and an 8 bags of heroin being present in the compartment. The compartment is considered to be in the reach…
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 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 statement, “The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places,” is one of the most controversial statements in Criminal Procedure. The amendment’s purpose is to secure individuals’ rights to privacy within their houses, papers, and defends them against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, to what extent does the law preserve a person’s privacy? The Law of Search and Seizure and the Search Warrant, give the government strict to stipulations as to how they are able to rightfully obtain information that is presumed to be private. Although Searches, Seizures and Warrants seem to have simple guidelines, they are each intricate categories.…