New answers tagged

6

Rolfe and his partner should have apprehended Garrett using non-lethal force, or else just let him get away. In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985): [Deadly] force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the ...


4

In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), the Supreme Court held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the ...


0

When a crime is committed over the Internet the prosecution has to establish a link between the crime and the accused, usually via an IP address. Typically they get the IP address from the computer targeted in the crime (e.g. a server which is the target of a hack). The IP address identifies the computer that the targeted computer was talking to. This is ...


0

Just an IP address is not even enough evidence to establish a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed, you would need substantial amounts of other evidence: the matter would not even get to court just based on knowing an IP address. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that there is evidence proving that a crime was committed, that the crime ...


1

It would probably be plain illegal for police officers to themselves administer sedatives under current law. There have been allegations that doctors or EMTs have done so at the suggestion of police, see Powell v. Staycoff (an EMT administered ketamine to a detainee in the back of a police car under the orders of a doctor). The court addresses the legal ...


0

Rules of evidence vary by jurisdiction, but there are minimum guarantees provided by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Hire the best criminal defense attorney who takes cases in the jurisdiction where you were charged. Then have a private consultation with your attorney regarding the suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the ...


0

australia Improperly obtained evidence can be used if the court allows Specifically, s138 of the Uniform Evidence Act (which is used Federally and in most states and territories) provides: evidence that was obtained improperly or illegally ‘is not to be admitted unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting ...


2

Of course you need a lawyer to represent you, and you can explain to that lawyer what happened. Based on what you say, I understand your allegation to be that the police broke into your house, obtained some evidence, then later arrested you based on that evidence. In some jurisdictions, this may be legal, but not in the US. The root problem is that a search ...


8

No. The government generally has no duty to protect private citizens from each other. It was different facts but basically the same question in DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), where the Supreme Court held: A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process ...


Top 50 recent answers are included