Given the details of the case mentioned on Page 137 of the text, there are multiple applicable acts that should be considered criminal and therefore up for trial. The following actions that can be taken by Chopra for personal injury(battery), false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution are common law intentional torts and should be actionable in a civil court. Since Chopra was refused a refund and then escorted out of Eaton’s an argument occurred between the security officer Frauenfeld and Chopra. After being asked to leave and escorted to the exit with a grasp on his elbow, Chopra pushed Frauenfeld off his elbow and in response Frauenfeld put Chopra in a headlock, knocked off hi glasses, and cut his lip. Chopra was arrested and handcuffed by security and was detained for four hours. During this time, Chopra was denied a phone call to his wife, got his drivers license removed from his wallet, and was photographed without consent. A phone call to the police was delayed for approximately two and a half hours. …show more content…
Frauenfeld committed Trespass to Person in terms of Assault and Battery. Self defence to the extent of reasonable force is it applicable, as the actions of the security officer far exceeds what can be considered as a rational response. In this particular case, a reasonable response for the officer would be to return the grasp he had previously had on Chopra’s elbow. A reasonable action for Chopra to take would be to follow the request of the officer to leave the store and exit without applying attempting to escape the security officers grip. In this case , Chopra conduct had provoked the officer to take action, but the course of action taken by Frauenfeld was not the correct
The defence argued that because the detention was unlawful, any arrest or search that flows from the detention should be regarded and was similarly unlawful. The Crown referred to common law power of arrest and search. As of R.v,Caslake’s case, it clearly stated that in the situation of an arrest, it is generally permitted that upon lawful arrest, police have the power to search a person for officer safety reason as well where there is “some reasonable prospect of securing evidence of the offence for which the accused is being arrested” and to secure that evidence. However, in the situation of Mr.Nanokeesic’s detention it is considered to be unlawful. The police did not have grounds to suspect that Mr.Nankeesic had provided a false name to them, as well, the fact that Mr.Nanokeesic ran
This caused the officer to seize both of their cell phones. Once seized the officer tried to unlock the phones to search them and asked them to unlock them to be searched. Officer Faultless noticed that Ruhmoan’s phone had a finger print lock and used his thumb while handcuffed to forcefully unlock his phone and searched his phone, finding potentially incriminating evidence. Rahten’s phone was later unlocked back at the police precinct by an IT specialist and was searched finding potentially incriminating
In one of Law & Order’s “ripped from the headlines” episodes titled “House Counsel,” a juror in a mob trial is found dead. Law enforcement investigates and learns that the mobster tampered with the juror in order to avoid a conviction and then killed him to keep him quiet. The lawyer defending the mobster is a good friend of Assistant District Attorney Jack McCoy. Later in the investigation, McCoy discovers that his friend may have played a role in the jury tampering. When he suspects his friend is involved, McCoy sees an opportunity to get the mobster and prosecutes the attorney for the murder to leverage information about the mobster. In the end, the lawyer is convicted and the attorney-client privilege between the lawyer and the mobster is dissolved.
excessive force cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. BYU Journal of Public Law, 26(1),
The case of DPP v Carr is a fundamental case in evaluating arrest as a measure of last resort in the execution of a police officer’s duties. The brief facts of the case were that the defendant Mr. Carr was arrested for having insulted and hurled offensive words at the arresting officer. In the decision of the court it stated that “arrest ought to be the last resort and should not be done if the name and address of the defendant is known by the police and that one will not fail to honour summons issued” . The decision in DPP v Carr has been used as the yardstick under common law in determining the threshold for which a police officer uses before arresting a suspect. In the appellate decision despite having held that the arrest was lawful, it went ahead to declare that it was improper since the police officer had the option of issuing summons.
This paper assumes that a police officer may or may not have “probable cause to arrest a defendant for armed assault” (AIU, 2016, para 1). I will address if the police officer had probable cause to believe that there is a person hiding in the third person’s garage, attached to the house (AIU, 2016, para 1). Accordingly, the police officer may need or not a warrant “to enter the garage to arrest the defendant” (AIU, 2016, para 2). An examination to “if the officer is in hot pursuit with the defendant” (AIU, 2016, para 2), and if the defendant is known to be injured and armed” (AIU, 2015, para 2). In addition, explain if the police officer probable cause to arrest and search the A and B residences.
“ Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime.” (Wikipedia, 2014) This law encompasses several different aspects of our government and the ways used to regulate them. Maintaining the peace and order of the public is one aspect. Law enforcement officers also try to keep good conduct of the public. Anyone who places the safety of the public in jeopardy, is in violation of this law. Punishment is used in a variety of ways to discipline any person who breaks these laws. There are four main sources used in today’s criminal law:
1. There are two courts that hear criminal trials, which are the Magistrates’ Court and the Crown Court.
Was the intrusion based on a lawful objective, such as a valid arrest, detention, search, frisk, community warden guardian of mentally ill, defense of an officer or a citizen, or to prevent escape? If these answer yes then an officer may have legal ability to use the levels of force listed below to apprehend the suspect. Another list of things to consider when determining if it was a lawful use of force is; was the use of force relative to the person’s confrontation? Was there a crucial need to terminate the condition? Even though there is no duty to retreat, could the officer have used lesser force and still safely accomplish the lawful objective? These are the questions that the jury need to answer to determine if they should side with or against the officer in any court case brought to them that deals with such a controversial topic as this.
In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. Orum (DPP v. Orum), in which the defendant was charged with two offences: C.6, S.5 (1) (a) of Public Order Act 1986, and C.48, S.51 (1) Police Act 1964. The defendant was acquitted of both charges at the Magistrates Court as it was ruled that a police constable is not considered likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress due to the nature of their job. As a result of this, the defendant was automatically not charged with the second offence as the constable had no power to arrest the defendant because the assault had taken place outside the police constable’s execution of duty. In relation to this verdict, the case was appealed to the High Court, in which the following questions arose: 1.
This essay focuses on intentional tort, which includes trespass to person consisting of battery, assault and false imprisonment, which is actionable per se. It also examines protection from harassment act. The essay commences with a brief description of assault, battery and false imprisonment. It goes further advising the concerned parties on the right to claim they have in tort law and the development of the law over the years, with the aid of case law, principles and statutes.
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
suddenly jumps in front of her and drags her into an alley. The attacker strikes (A) and rips her clothes. Fortunately, (A) hits the attacker with a rock and runs to safety. The man’s actions do not amount to assault, they amount to a battery as he dragged the woman to an alley, stroke her, and ripped her clothes off with the intent of causing her harm. The acts of the woman are a measure of self-defense, and she cannot be held accountable for the infliction she may have induced to the man. If the man just followed her without having any physical contact with her, his actions would have constituted to assault, as he would inflict fear into the
In all Australian legal jurisdictions, children under the age of ten are considered to be too young to have criminal intent. That means, that children under this age cannot be held legally responsible for their actions. Australia is the only region in the world to have uniform legal guidelines on the lower age limit of criminal responsibility. (Weijers, Grisso 2009 p.45). Having the presumption that children under the age of ten are unable to know the law completely, therefore not being able to have mens rea, is in my opinion, necessary in our criminal courts. This essay will look at the reasons for the necessary use of the minimum age of criminal responsibility, such as the Beijing rules, the convention
As after the journalist dodged investigation went on air there was flood of messages and phone calls in the support of the cause. And afterwards peoples crusade at India Gate and across the country. The Delhi High Court took suo motu cognizance of the case and heard the case on day to day basis for another twenty five days and finally justice prevailed. Manu Sharma and his friends were convicted on the charges of murder and Jessica’s friend and other eye witnesses were charged under the offence of perjury. This new dimension of perjury proceedings is indeed a gift from the good soul of Jessica Lall to Indian legal