QUESTION PRESENTED Under Indiana law, whether Stranger Things Corporation is immune from liability for false imprisonment under Indiana's Shoplifting Detention Act § 35-33-6-2 when James Hopper acted with probable cause to mistakenly identify a customer with immediate medical needs, Will Byers, as a shoplifter, and detained him in a locked room for twenty minutes? BRIEF ANSWER No. STC will likely not have immunity because Hopper conducted the detention in an unreasonable manner by confining Byers to a locked room despite his requests for medical assistance. § 35-33-6-2 provides immunity from liability when the detention (1) has probable cause, (2) lasts for a reasonable amount of time not exceeding two hours, and (3) is conducted in a reasonable …show more content…
Indiana's Shoplifting Detention Act (ISDA) provides a store owner or agent with immunity from liability to detain a suspected shoplifter when the detention (1) has probable cause, (2) lasts for a reasonable amount of time, not extending beyond two hours (3) is conducted in a reasonable manner. Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 35-33-6-2 (2016). For the first element, Indiana courts look at whether the facts known to the store agent would lead a reasonable person to believe that the detainee may be committing theft. This is met because Hopper witnessed Byers walking speedily towards the store exit with concealed store merchandise. The second element is undisputed because the detention took thirty minutes. For the third element, detentions must not excessively restrict the detainee’s freedom of movement, or cause serious harm. This is not met because Hopper locked Byers in a room for twenty minutes and ignored his repeated requests for medical …show more content…
Haltom v. Bruner & Meis, Inc., 680 N.E.2d 6, 7 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). In Chestnet v. K-Mart Corp., a security officer observed a customer place a gas-cap into her purse and exit the store without purchasing merchandise, and detained her in-store for 30 minutes. 529 N.E.2d 131, 131-2 (Ind. Ct. App 1988). Although the customer was found innocent, the court held that the store was immune from liability because this "satisfied both the spirit and the letter" of the ISDA. 529 N.E.2d at
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 108 S. Ct. 592, 98 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1988).
Application/Analysis: While using a previous case DePasquale v. State 757.1988, that court held in this case that the defendant was not entrapped when he robbed that undercover female decoy. The court held that the officers committed no misconduct, they also put five factors that show that Miller intended to steal from the decoy. The fact that Mill asked Officer Leavitt for money first and after Leavitt told him no; Miller took it upon himself to take the money away. This act was enough to show Miller intentionally committed larceny, the court held that Miller was not
Facts: According to the case Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati (1986), an Ohio physician was being investigated for fraud. During the course of the investigation, it was necessary to interview two employees from his practice. Since the employees did not respond to a subpoena, a warrant was issued and the Sheriffs were sent out to the physician’s office where the employees also worked. Upon arrival, the Sheriffs were not allowed to enter the area where the two employees
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
Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon.
Maryland v. Shatzer- “In Maryland v. Shatzer, the Court created a break-in-custody exception to Edwards v. Arizona, holding that a defendant who is released from custody for a period of at least fourteen days loses the protection Edwards provides to suspects who invoke the right to counsel.37 The Shatzer Court also decided that a prisoner “subject to a baseline set of restraints imposed pursuant to a prior conviction" is not in custody for Miranda purposes” (Kinports,
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, 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 searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
Wagner, F. D. (2010). McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.. Supreme Court of the United States, 1, 1-214. Retrieved May 4, 2014, from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
The first “element” states that “excessive bail shall not be required, not excessive fines imposed.” Bail is a temporary
Allows a federal judge to detain an arrestee pending trial if a defendant constitutes a danger to other persons or to the community
(Purdon’s, 166). Also in 1989 in addition to what sections officers could arrest for they also had to “observe recent physical injury or other corroborative evidence and the victim is a spouse of the suspect or a person with whom the suspect resides or has formally resided with.” (Zimmerman, 30).
The Miranda warnings stem from a United States Court’s decision in the case, Miranda v. Arizona. There are two basic conditions that must be met for Miranda warnings to be required: the suspect must be in official police custody and the suspect must be under interrogation. The suspect goes through a booking process after an arrest. The suspect will have a bond hearing shortly after the completion of the booking process or after arraignment. The arraignment is the suspect’s first court appearance to officially hear the charges filed against him or her and to enter a plea. The preliminary hearing or grand jury proceeding determines if there is substantial evidence for the suspect to be tried for the crime charged. In this essay, I will identify and describe at least four rights afforded criminal defendants at the arrest stage and during pretrial. I will analyze the facts presented and other relevant factors in the scenario provided. I will cite legal authority to support my conclusions.
When officers arrived at the living area of Johnson and his roommate, Benner Brewer, they did not have a warrant to search Johnson’s area, which violated his 4th amendment rights against a warrantless search.
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 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.