Legal Studies

Thompson-Starr (B) Police Officer, everywhereweening force, qualified immunity. Part One For m whatsoever years patrol pull out throughicers collapse enjoyed the power of authority over the general public with the motto to protect and servicing. If this is the case, hence let this plough the yardstick that will cake the conduct that law of nature most earnestly pro margin call. Police officers be held as the safeguard of the community. They be designed to protect the people from the criminal elements and serve as role models for those who need to beneathstand law and order.But when this develop occurs, when the police believe that they can do whatever they ascertain without a form of accountability, police brutality is birthed. The case of Solomon v. Auburn Hills Police plane section is a prime example of unnecessary police involvement. This case is a result of information, misinformation, direction, and misdirection as to the physical presence of an adult to stick to children to a particular movie in that theatre. To rent two robust police officers arrive to resolve a dispute over a ticket purchase to me appears to deem been a waste of valuable police work.N one and only(a)theless, the officers instructed Ms. Solomon to relinquish, which she refused believing that she had bought tickets in this theatre what was the difference of which show. The management do it unmortgaged that the children had to be accompanied and it was obvious that Ms. Solomon was not going to leave her nipper children alone to go r-rated and could not leave the r-rated alone to go g-rated. believe that she resolved it by just selecting one show, the security guards for some source distinguishable to evict her from the selected show because she did not purchase her ticket for the equal movie.The police entered told Solomon she had to leave again she refused. Officer Miller decided to gibe her for trespassing and grabbed her arm. Solomon pushed the seat backed away from the officer who decided instantly that she was getting arrested on charges of assaulting a police officer. The police persuaded her to the lobby where the disturbance continued with Officer Miller and Raskin grabbing Solomons arms and slamming her up against a wall and pushing her face into a display case.This scuffle left-hand(a) Ms. Solomon injured. Ms. Solomon was later taken to the hospital and diagnosed with having a comminuted fracture of her left elbow, several(prenominal) bruises, and was hospitalized because she needed surgery for her fracture, scheduled a blurb surgery for later, and had to gravel physical therapy. Solomon later on a plea bargain pleaded blameable to trespass and attempted resisting arrest. The fortuity as a whole was over reactive, abusive, and dumb on both parties.The use of qualified immunity is designed to protect government officials from those who bring lawsuits against them because they did not agree with the discretionary bet in w hich the officials interpreted and enforced the law. The police use it to protect themselves if they exhibited overweening force they believed necessary to subdue a criminal. But the nature of the annoyance also has a bearing on how much force should be used. In this case the territory court used the Saucier test to specify if Solomons constitutional rights violation was established and was the officers bodily butt reasonable by a reasonable objective officers standard.The court also determined the severity of the crime, if the person is a cargoner risk, and did their action take place because the police feared for their own safeguard. Because all of this dismiss short, the court affirmed the district courts denial for heavyset judgment. Of course I agree with the opinion of the district court. If the police are quick to react to any given situation knowing that they are placed in a position to make split second decision, if they are not capable of such reasoning then they should look another line of work.Police authority comes with knowledge, protection, sound judgment, and containment. It would be inordinate to believe that police cannot arrest anyone. But is unreasonable is when they take their jobs so seriously that they endanger others by their actions. Because of one womans refusal to leave the theatre over a movie ticket, she is arrested, injured, and probably humiliated in front of her children all on the over reaction of two police officers. Although I believe that Officer Raskin should have been party to this since he incomplete aided nor stopped either party from going any further.Ms. Solomons refusal also played a role in causing this incident to spin out of control. She should have thought about her familys safety first. When security guards arrived and then the police, a bell should have gone off in her head telling her something more was going to happen anyway disputing a theatre ticket. Calmly get up out of the seat, sink to the l obby, and then try to explain what happened and the rationale. If that failed then leave, the movie theatre do it such drama just to go to the right theatre and who could go where, to me it was not worth it.Thompson-Starr (D) Congress seeking to modify Miranda Rule The Miranda pattern is what police must give when they arrest someone and place them into their custody. This process of monition must state the fact that what they say may be held against them and that they have the right to stick around silent, to get an lawyer, and to have a free attorney if they cannot afford one. When given properly, any statement made by the suspect during custody cannot be used in a court of law.Mirandize has become synonymous with protection against abusive police and their powers and overzealous prosecutors trying to get a speedy trial. When this rule became law, it was at a time when in that respect was so much establishment protest and unrest that no one was definite on the governments pos ition of trying to withstand civil obedience. Through it all, the Miranda Warning helped protect the innocent as puff up as the guilty, key pieces of evidence got tossed because people claim they were not instructed to remain silent or entitle to ratified representation.The nous of reliability of statements made in police custody cannot be caused by fear, bargaining, physical and psychic abuse. The ruling had controversy in the late sixties that Congress decided to create a law that would overthrow the Supreme begs decision. The case of Dickerson v. United States is an example of the Miranda controversy. Dickerson, indicted for entrust robbery, conspiracy to commit bank robbery and other charges, revealed some information to the FBI, decided later that he did not want it used at his trial and sought to have it suppressed.Standing on the Miranda warning, Dickerson claimed his rights were not read and was granted motion to suppress. The district court agreed that no Miranda wa s given but believes there was a gray area under a statute which makes the statements admissible and rule Dickersons statements as voluntary. Congress challenged the Miranda by viewing it as not a constitutional holding and that congress by statute had the kick the bucket say on its admissibility. The case was reviewed by the Supreme Court. The court hold that custodial police interrogations increased concerns about questionable onfessions, the interrogation process is known for mental deprivation from isolation and pressure. The court further storied that this method only effect those who are weak and cannot withstand any confinement. Constitutional guidelines had been established so that when statements are made they would not bumble anyones constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment. The court continues to explain the necessities of Miranda and the challenges that numerous judges have to properly interpret the question of coercion versus voluntary.The question of over ruling Miranda was put before the court to rule and they determined it be a constitutional rule that congress cannot supersede legislatively and therefore declined to overrule Miranda and reversed the court of appeals decision. From a liberal perspective, many civil liberties free radical would view this as a victory because the Supreme Court would not tamper with the Miranda ruling. The conservatives would challenge anything they believe affects the strength of the constitution. They believe that once a law has been established and based on constitutional findings, that no greyback come lately law should easily reverse it.Thompson-Starr (E) Attorney requital based on fortuity fee arrangement A accident fee is a payment to a lawyer of a dowry of the proceeds his client won in a case. The lawyer would cope with nothing if his client does not recover anything. Clients have the right to spark their attorneys without giving a reason but can be challenged as in the case of Joy Sa lmon v. Virginia Atkinson. This case covers the discharged attorneys suing under quantum meruit recuperation for legal work that they performed while still retained by the client.Quantum meruit, as explained by the Illinois Supreme Court, is based on the implied promise of a liquidator of services to pay for the services which are of value to him. The recipient would be unjustly enriched if he were able to retain the services without remunerative for them. It appears after reading this case, that the plaintiff in error wanted to use the appellees to do her legal research and not pay for it. First, she enters into a contract that states she would give the attorneys cardinal percent of any recovery awarded plus costs and expenses. This is making the attorneys get from this lawsuit more than the client.Secondly, after the appellees had drawn up a appeal for the appellant to file, the appellate now wanted to think about file the claim that she originally implement through the att orneys. Then it took her several weeks to decide that she no longer needed their services even though she took the predication with her. To avoid further verbal communication with them, appellant discharges them by a letter. The attorneys notified their ex-client to inform her that she ended an agreement or contract and they are entitled to work through, especially after finding out that the appellant filed her claim pro se.The attorneys took the ex-client to court and the circuit court ruled in favor of the appellees. The appellant filed a motion of judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing that because the contingent upon(p) fee contract specified that no fee can be recovered if there is not any recovery. The appellant continued register motions hoping that one would be granted. Then appellant finally filed an appeal. On the appeal, appellant argued that appellees should not have been able to collect a quantum meruit fee because there was no recovery and this was written i n the contract.The court then oscillated with the calcium rule versus the New York rule. nether the California rule, attorneys that are discharged are barred from receiving any recovery if the client did not fit any. Under the New York rule, discharged attorneys recovery is not tied into the clients recovery and therefore can receive compensation for work done prior to their termination. The Supreme Court of Arkansas citing Illinoiss Supreme Court held that the claimants recovery should not be linked to a contingency contract, but on quantum meruit, getting what their rightfully deserve.Why shouldnt the attorneys receive what they rightfully worked on? They did not request to still consider the cubic decimeter percent, cost, and expenses. All they wanted was money for the time, research, and hard work they put in concert to provide a petition that they later presented to the client who ended up taking it with her and stalling them by saying she had to think about a procedure that she initiated over her deceased common law spouses estate.If a client would walk into an attorneys office and strike him to do all the legal research and writing of necessary documents, then later decides they no longer requires their services, I would view as a deceptive means of gaining legal help without paying for it. It is not chastely right and now there is a law that shows that there is a remedy if this happens by unscrupulous people. The court in this case did not touch on the right to discharge the attorney, what they focused on was the recovery for work performed.