Rottman v commissioners of police for the Metropolis
“Extradition search is lawful, lords say common law power is still available”
The name of the parties are (appellant) commissioner of the police of the metropolis,(respondent) Mr. Michael Rottman . The judgment has been held in the house of lords. The judges on this were- Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Roger of Earlsferry. The barristers and solicitors in this case were, Mr. Perry, on behalf of the appellant and Miss Montgomery, for the respondent. The date of the judgment was 16th may 2002.
MATERIAL FACTS- the respondent, Mr. Micheal Rottman , is a German businessman and was suspected of fraud in Germany. A court in Germany issued a warrant for his arrest on the 27th December 1996. The respondent left Germany at the end of 1995. On 13TH September 2000 the metropolitan police received a request from the German authorities via Interpol, for the respondent’s extradition to Germany. On 22nd September 2000 a provisional warrant for the respondents arrest was issued by the Bow street magistrate’s court under section 8(1) of the extradition Act 1989. The respondent was arrested a few yards from his front door. Though in section 17 of the police and criminal evidence act 1984,the police had to enter the grounds of the house to arrest according to the warrant . After a short period of time two German police officers arrived and asked Detective Sergeant Loudon, the senior Metropolitan police officer to search the house and seized a number of properties in it. The respondent brought an application for judicial review against the appellant and the home secretary in respect of the decision by the police to enter his home in Hazlem...
... middle of paper ...
...rrest of a suspect.
The force was proportionate to that heading because it was subject to the safeguards that it could only be done after a warrant of arrest had been put out by a magistrate or justice of the peace in respect of an extradition crime and where the evidence laid before he would, in his view, justify the issue of a warrant for the apprehension of a person accused of a similar domestic offense.
Lord Hope (dissenting opinion), agreeing that SS 18, 19 and 32 did not apply where a person was arrested under a provisional warrant for an extradition offense, said that the common-law powers available when effecting an arrest did not extend to a search of the premises for evidence, that in any event the power did not apply for an apprehension on a provisional warrant and that the encumbrance with the claimant's Article 8 rights had not been proportionate.
The Court held that because of the “special facts” the “attempt to secure evidence of blood-alcohol content in this case was an appropriate incident to petitioner’s arrest.” Under current jurisprudence, we would construe the language about “special facts” as relating to the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment – which resists categorical rules – and instead focuses on the need for the intrusion and the availability of a warrant. However, the language also justifies the search as “incident to petitioner’s arrest,” which would indicate that the test was upheld as a search incident-to-arrest. In situations where it is appropriate, that has been described as a “categorical” exception to the warrant requirement that does not require any case-by-case
Provided procedural safeguards which judicial officers hade to follow in considering potential dangerousness or flight
This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law.
...anded a need for subjective question of information into the definite trust of the police officers. The Supreme Court remanded the case return to the previous lower power courts authoritative instruction to decide on the case in a court of law (based) implementing on the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness test.
Type of Action: This is a Civic suit under Title VII civil right Act of 1964 for discrimination in view of sex, of a hostile or abusive work environment and allegation sexual harassment.
Syme, D. (1997). Martin Bryant's Sentence- What the judge said, Retrieved 5 July, 2003, from http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/sentence.htm. 7. The Australian Encyclopaedia.
A man named Edward Strief was arrested by detective Douglas Fackrell during an anyonoymys tip relating to the sales of drugs at a nearby residence. Fackwell witnesed Edwad coming outside the residence that he was watching for two weeks. Fackwell then decided to stop and detain Strief as he was walking out. In addition, Strief had a warrant out for his arrest which was deemed “outstanding”. In addition, the deective discovered methamphetamine and a pipe used for drugs. Stried fought it in court claiming the search was unreasonable because the officer has no suspicion., thus affirming the exclusonary rule. According to the district court , the detective conducted an unlawful investigative stop, but the evdience found justifies incident to arrest.
The principle of bail is basic to our system of justice and its practice as old as English law itself. When the administration of criminal justice was in its infancy, arrest for serious crime meant imprisonment without preliminary hearing and long periods of time could occur between apprehension and the arrival of the King's Justices to hold court. It was therefore a matter of utmost importance to a person under arrest to be able to obtain a provisional release from custody until his case was called. This was also the desideratum of the medieval sheriff, the representative of the Crown in criminal matters,
Early in British history, the establishment of the Magna Carta gave its citizens basic human rights such as the right to a fair trial by jury in circumstances of accused misdemeanor. However, this document allowed “general warrant[s which gave consent to arrest accused criminals but did not have limitations on their search or seizure and that] did not expire until t...
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others [1999] All ER (D) 1173.
There have been common concerns in regards to the fourth amendment from colonial times till present day. From the original disputes with the British, to the evolution of warrants and when they are necessary, there are still unsettling feelings remaining. Back before America was a country of its own, colonists were continually subjected to raids by soldiers who were trying to find smuggled goods. British officials operated under writs of assistance, which were “general search warrants issued by superior provincial courts to assist the British government in enforcing trade and navigation laws” (Encyclopedia Britannica). The use of these were considered the utmost arbitrary abusement of power, and were outlawed in several states after independence was won from Great Britain. As years became centuries, the purpose of a warrant developed. Currently, in order for law enforcement to conduct a search of someone’s property, they need a reasonable basis that would lead them to believe a crime is being
The first thing the judges would have looked t would have been paragraph (56d) of the Public Service Act 1922 and from this they would have seen how he didn’t manage to comply his job as a tax payer officer as he used his official customs identification card and with his job this was very unethical as he was going to use it to gain access to a court officer, so he could get information about a search warrant which was authorized a search of his work station.
A warrant must also be supported by probable cause and the warrant must describe the person person/place that is being searched and seized. One requirement for search and
Lord Hope notably proposed that ‘the rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimately controlling factor on which our constitution is based’ . This was concurred by Lady Baroness Hale who stated that ‘the courts will treat with particular suspicion any attempt to subvert the rule of law’ although she acknowledged, ‘the constraints upon what Parliament can do are political and diplomatic rather than constitution.’
R v. HM Coroner for East Kent ex parte Spooner (1989) 88 Cr. App. R. 10 at 17