Kincaid was not detained for a reasonable time because during her detention the security guard took a fifteen-minute personal phone call. Detention is for a reasonable amount if the store uses the time to investigate and if the store’s employee does not make physical contact with a person in order to detain them. Mitchell v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 477 S.E.2d 631, 633 (Ga. App. 1996). Colonial Stores, Inc. v Fishel, 288 S.E.2d 21, 23 (Ga. App. 1981). In Mitchell, the court held that the plaintiff’s detention was for a reasonable period of time because the store used the time to inquire about the circumstances which lead to their antishoplifting device alarm activating and because the detention was only for ten or fifteen-minutes. Mitchell v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 477 S.E.2d 631, 633 (Ga. App. …show more content…
The plaintiff in Mitchell activated the store’s antishoplifting device alarm while exiting the store. Id. at 632. The store security guard detained her by taking her shopping bag and investigating the items inside of the bag. Id. In Colonial Stores the court held that the store did not detain the plaintiff in a reasonable time because the store did not conduct an investigation while the plaintiff was being detained. Colonial Stores, Inc. v Fishel, 288 S.E.2d 21, 23 (Ga. App. 1981). The store manager and security guard in Colonial Stores detained the plaintiff without investigating further to see if the plaintiff was guilty of shoplifting. Id. The court stated that the purpose of detaining someone suspected of shoplifting was to investigate. Id. The store’s failure to investigate makes them liable for false imprisonment according to the court in Colonial Stores.
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
The court will likely hold that Andrew Keegan’s (“Mr. Keegan”) actions were a product of a law enforcement officer in influencing his conduct therefore establishing an entrapment defense.
City of Pinellas Park v. Brown was a case brought to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District by the plaintiff Brown. In this case, the Brown family sued the City of Pinellas Sheriff Department on the grounds of negligence that resulted in the tragic death of two Brown sisters during a police pursuit of a fleeing traffic violator Mr. Deady. The facts in this case are straight forward, and I shall brief them as logical as possible.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier of 1987-1988 Background: At Hazel East High School, the school has a sponsored newspaper called “The Spectrum” that is written and edited by the students. In May of 1983, the high school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, received the edited version of the May 13th edition. Upon inspecting the paper, he found two articles that he found “inappropriate.” The two articles contained stories about divorce and teen pregnancy. An article on divorce featured a student who blamed her father’s actions for her parents’ divorce.
As a result of the suspect, P.C Spicer asked the defendant for a piece of identification, and Mr.Nanokeesic responded the identification was in his backpack and P.C Spicer told him to get it. Nevertheless, the other office P.C Bannon formed intention to search his backpack during the unlawful detention. The police said “perhaps I need to look for you.” At this point he reached out for the strap of Mr.Nanokeesic’s backpack. In R.v.Mohamd, the court held that the Officer must subjectively believe that person is committing or has committed an indictable offence and their belief is based on objectively reasonable grounds. There was no evidence of Mr.Nanokeesic was committing an indictable offence. Also, the detention of Mr.Nanokeesic was unreasonable and unlawful. In short, the police did not have any lawful basis to conduct a
On June 26, 2006, a Sheriff Officer of the State of Florida, William Wheetley and his drug detection dog, Aldo, were on patrol. Furthermore, Officer Wheetley conducted a traffic stop of the defendant Clayton Harris for expired tags on his truck. As Officer Wheetley approached the truck, he noticed that Harris was acting nervous/anxious, more than he should have, and he also noticed an open can of beer in the cup holder next to him. At that moment, Officer Wheetley knew that he was hiding something, he requested to search
Search and seizure in Canada has evolved into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an important asset in the legal world. The case of R v. TSE sets an important example of how unreasonable search and seizure is in Canada. An important section that relates to this case is s. 8. The main concerns with this case are whether the police abuse their powers to search and seize Yat Fung Albert Tse, the fact that when the police did enter into the wiretap they did not have a warrant and also that it is a breach of privacy without concern.
A monopoly in New York required steam boats traveling in the state to be licensed. If a boat was unlicensed, it would be forfeited to the owners of the monopoly. Aaron Ogden, an ex-governor of New Jersey, had a licensed steamboat he used to travel between New York and New Jersey. Thomas Gibbons, Ogden’s former associate, used his steamboat along the same path as Ogden to compete with him. Gibbons held a coasting license under a 1793 congressional act, but did not own a license from the New York monopoly. In 1819, Ogden brought suit against Gibbons in the New York Court of Chancery in order to stop the competition. The court ruled in favor of Ogden, deciding the 1793 congressional act did not conflict with the New York monopoly and Gibbons had no right to use his boat in New York. The New York Court of Errors affirmed the decision, and Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court.
Facts: Mr. Walter Mickens Jr. brought an appeal, habeas petition, after being sentenced to death for premeditated murder, during or following the act of sodomy of Timothy Hall. Mr. Mickens later had learned that his appointed attorney had represented the victim at a prior date and stated this course of action violated his sixth amendment and was a conflict of interest on his attorney’s part. His lead attorney, Mr. Brian Saunders, never at any point of his representation of Mr. Mickens, disclosed he had represented the victim or let the District Judge know when he was appointed to Mr. Mickens that he had in the past represented Mr. Hall, victim, in juvenile
On 11/23/17, at approximately 1718 hours, I escorted Inmate Lemke, Tyler T372795 out of Durango 6 for questioning. I read Inmate Lemke his Miranda Rights from the standard issued Miranda Rights Card. I asked If Inmate Lemke understood his rights? Inmate Lemke stated, "Yes." I asked Inmate Lemke if he was willing to answer any of my questions? Inmate Lemke stated, "Yes." I asked Inmate Lemke If he knew if there was any known contraband discovered in his cell (#17) on 11/22? Inmate Lemke stated, "No." I asked Inmate Lemke if he was sure he had no idea that there was a shank in his cell? Inmate Lemke stated, "No." I asked Inmate Lemke If he knew who the shank belonged to? Inmate Lemke stated, "No."
It is never enough to create a great product; it has to be coupled with a desire for that product. The competitive advantage that Wedgwood brought to his company was the ability to create demand for goods. He was able to see the needs of the market before the market did and then cultivating market demand to satisfy those needs with his goods. A differentiation strategy was put into place by Wedgwood for his products as there were already a number of pottery options available on the market. Instead of the low quality, irregular options that were available on the market, Wedgwood’s pottery was made from clay, rather than wood, and was a more uniform finished product. A method of increasing demand by raising the perceived value of the pottery is to drive up demand by the high affluent. One of the ways that he accomplished this was through a technique called inertia selling. By putting a high quality and reputable product in the hands of the elite with no penalty, Wedgwood can display first-hand his high-end craftsmanship and design. With the working class working in the homes of...
The United States Supreme Court, in Howes v. Fields, rejected a per se rule that questioning a prison inmate in a room isolated from the general prison population about events occurring outside the prison is custodial interrogation. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution requires that a person in “custodial interrogation” be read Miranda rights, those rights which come from the case of Miranda v. Arizona. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that a prisoner is in custody within the meaning of Miranda if the prisoner is taken away from the general prison area and questioned about events that occurred outside the prison. The Sixth Circuit held that the interview of Fields in the room was a “custodial interrogation” because isolation from the rest of the prison combined with questioning about allegation outside the prison makes such an interrogation custodial per se. The term “custody” refers to circumstances where the danger of coercion is present. A court will look to the objective circumstances of the interrogation to find whether a person is in custody. In order for statements made ...
If you slip and fall in a grocery store and injure yourself, this event alone is not enough to hold the store liable for your injuries. You must be able to demonstrate that
Reasonable Suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable su...
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.