CRIMINAL EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE ONLINE WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE ONLINE write - Assignment ExampleHymon identified himself as a police force military officer and ordered the suspect to stop. The materialization man crouched at the fence ignored the officers command and attempted to over the fence. While the suspect was passage over the fence, the police officer fired at the suspect hitting him in the head. The burglary suspect was a fifteen-year-old named Edward Garner who consequently died as a result of the shooting. The officer who shot Garner was acting consistent to the law of Tennessee and the Memphis police department policy. The Memphis police policy authorizes a police officer to use ruinous force to apprehend a fleeing suspect. It provides that where all other means to apprehend that suspect have been exhausted. The police are taught to shoot to kill and not trained to shoot to wound, therefore, it is apparent that Garners death was not accidental. thenceforth the suspects father brought a civil ri ghts action against the Director of Police, the Memphis Police Department, the City, the mayor and officer Hymon. Legal point of issue The action was founded on the claim that when Hymon shot and killed Garners he violated his total rights as under the fourth, eighth and fourteenth amendments. The other defendants in the case were enjoined in the suit on the basis that they failed to exercise due care in the employment, training, and supervision of officer Hymon and, therefore, they were equally responsible for Garners death. ending of the court The court decided that the using deadly force to seize a fleeing and unarmed whitlow is unconstitutional as indicated by the mandates of fourth, eighth and fourteenth amendments. Additionally the court found that the rule of the fleeing whitlow does not violate the provisions of either the fourth or the eighth amendments. Reasoning of the court In arriving at its decision, the court reasoned that a police officer could insure an individua l if there is the potential reason that the individual has committed a crime. The fourth amendment does not make any provisions concerning how the gaining control is made. The seizure should have a balance of the extent of assault as against the reasonableness of the manner the watch is made. To determine the reasonability of an arrest, there must be a balance of both nature and the quality of the intrusion on the individuals interests as provided for by the fourth amendment against the importance of the interests of the government to justify the seizure. The court referred to the case of scratch v summers where it was held that the key principles of the fourth amendment are balancing competing interests. Furthermore, the court found that reasonableness depends on when the arrest is made and how it is executed. In view of this and in light of the current case, the court found that irrespective of the likely cause to apprehend a suspect the officer apprehending the suspect must not always do so by killing him. The use of such deadly force by an officer in conducting an arrest is unmatched (Kevin, Rick, & Betsy 2007). The fundamental interest of the suspect is his life and the use of lethal force in effecting an arrest frustrates the interest of the individual (Gino 2003). The use of lethal force also frustrates the interest of the society in judicially determining the guilt of the suspect and