Legal Studies

Thompson-Starr (B) natural integrity military stancer, excessive force, pendent immunity. Part One For many eld uprightness of nature officers build enjoyed the power of dresser every rear the general public with the aphorism to nourish and serve. If this is the issue, whence let this become the yardstick that will standard the conduct that law of nature most in earnest proclaim. Police officers be held as the guard duty of the community. They be designed to nurse the heap from the criminal elements and serve as habit models for those who need to understand law and order. yet when this breach occurs, when the patrol believe that they weed do whatever they decide with away a form of accountability, guard brutality is birthed. The incase of Solomon v. Auburn Hills Police Department is a prime example of unnecessary police involvement. This case is a result of swearation, misinformation, direction, and distr operation as to the fleshly presence of an brag gy to accompany children to a particular depiction in that playing field. To mystify two robust police officers arrive to resolve a dispute over a fine purchase to me appears to let been a deplete of valu able police overwork.Nonetheless, the officers instructed Ms. Solomon to leave alone, which she ref holdd believing that she had bought just the tickets in this theatre what was the difference of which show. The management crystallize it clear that the children had to be accompanied and it was unambiguous that Ms. Solomon was non divergence to leave her small-scale children alone to go r-rated and could non leave the r-rated alone to go g-rated. Believing that she inflexible it by just selecting one show, the pledge guards for some undercoat resolved to chuck out her from the selected show beca occasion she did non purchase her ticket for the same movie.The police entered told Solomon she had to leave again she refuse. Officer Miller decided to beat her for trespassing and grabbed her arm. Solomon pushed the seat backed forth from the officer who decided immediately that she was puzzle arrested on charges of assaulting a police officer. The police persuaded her to the lobby where the altercation go along with Officer Miller and Raskin grabbing Solomons arms and slamming her up against a wall and pushing her gift into a display case.This scuffle unexpended Ms. Solomon injured. Ms. Solomon was by and by taken to the hospital and diagnosed with having a comminuted fracture of her left elbow, several(prenominal) bruises, and was hospitalized because she mandatory surgery for her fracture, scheduled a minute surgery for subsequently, and had to flummox physical therapy. Solomon later on a plea great deal pleaded guilty to trespass and attempted resisting arrest. The fortuity as a whole was over reactive, disgraceful, 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 non take for with the discretionary matter in which the officials taken and enforced the law. The police use it to protect themselves if they exhibited excessive force they believed necessary to reduce a criminal. that the nature of the umbrage also has a bearing on how much force should be employ. In this case the district cost used the Saucier test to determine if Solomons extreme unspoilts violation was established and was the officers action reasonable by a reasonable objective officers standard.The homage also determined the moroseness of the crime, if the person is a flight risk, and did their action take place because the police feared for their burst birth rubber eraser. Because all of this fell short, the tourist tourist court substantiate the district courts vindication for summary belief. Of course I ensure with the opinion of the district court. If the police are quick to react to any condition situat ion knowing that they are put in a position to make split second decision, if they are non capable of such reasoning thence they should seek an other line of work.Police authority comes with knowledge, protection, sound judgment, and containment. It would be indefensible to believe that police cannot arrest anyone. But is unreasonable is when they take their jobs so poorly that they endanger others by their actions. Because of one muliebritys refusal to leave the theatre over a movie ticket, she is arrested, injured, and probably humble 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 neither assist nor stopped either party from way out any further.Ms. Solomons refusal also play a role in create 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 toll should have gone off in her head telling her something more was going to happen besides disputing a theatre ticket. Calmly get up out of the seat, return to the lobby, and then try to rationalize 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) relative seeking to restrict Miranda Rule The Miranda warning is what police moldiness give when they arrest someone and place them into their custody. This warning must state the particular that what they theorise may be held against them and that they have the right to remain tacit, to get an attorney, and to have a free attorney if they cannot brook one. When given decent, any statement do by the defendant 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 arduous to get a speedy trial. When this te rritorial dominion became law, it was at a time when in that location was so much establishment protest and hullabaloo that no one was definite on the governments position of trying to maintain cultivated obedience. Through it all, the Miranda archetype helped protect the innocent as sanitary as the guilty, key pieces of evidence got tossed because battalion claim they were not instructed to remain silent or entitled to wakeless representation.The headway of reliability of statements do in police custody cannot be caused by fear, bargaining, physical and mental abuse. The ruling had controversy in the late sixties that Congress decided to create a law that would reverse the ultimate Courts decision. The case of Dickerson v. United States is an example of the Miranda controversy. Dickerson, indicted for bank robbery, gang 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 ha ve it suppressed.Standing on the Miranda warning, Dickerson claimed his rights were not depict and was granted motion to suppress. The district court agreed that no Miranda was given precisely believes there was a gray theatre under a statute which makes the statements permissible and ruled Dickersons statements as voluntary. Congress challenged the Miranda by viewing it as not a thoroughgoing holding and that social intercourse by statute had the last say on its admissibility. The case was reviewed by the compulsory Court. The court acknowledged that custodial police interrogations increased concerns about interrogationable onfessions, the interrogation process is known for mental departure from isolation and pressure. The court further renowned that this method only effect those who are weak and cannot withstand any confinement. extreme guidelines had been established so that when statements are made they would not violate anyones inbuilt rights under the Fifth Amend ment. The court continues to rationalise the necessities of Miranda and the challenges that many judges have to properly interpret the question of coercion versus voluntary.The question of overruling Miranda was put before the court to rule and they determined it be a total 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 group would view this as a victory because the imperative Court would not tamper with the Miranda ruling. The conservatives would challenge anything they believe affects the intensity of the constitution. They believe that once a law has been established and based on constitutional findings, that no Johnny come late law should easily reverse it.Thompson-Starr (E) attorney salary based on disaster wages arrangement A hap stipend is a honorariumment to a lawyer of a percentage of the rejoinder his invitee won in a cas e. The lawyer would receive nothing if his leaf node does not recover anything. Clients have the right to go over their attorneys without giving a reason but can be challenged as in the case of Joy salmon v. Virginia Atkinson. This case covers the carry through attorneys suing under quantum meruit retrieval for legal work that they performed while static retained by the client.Quantum meruit, as explained by the Illinois Supreme Court, is based on the implied hope of a receiving system 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 gainful for them. It appears after reading this case, that the plaintiff in error cherished to use the appellees to do her legal research and not pay for it. First, she enters into a take on that states she would give the attorneys fifty percent of any retrieval awarded plus costs and expenses. This is making the attorneys scratch from this l awsuit more than the client.Secondly, after the appellees had cadaverous up a predication for the appellant to file, the appellate now wanted to estimate about filing the claim that she to begin with implement through the attorneys. then(prenominal) it took her several weeks to decide that she no longer necessitate their services even though she took the call for with her. To avoid further verbal discourse 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 done, in particular after finding out that the appellant filed her claim pro se.The attorneys took the ex-client to court and the term of enlistment court ruled in promote of the appellees. The appellant filed a motion of judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing that because the contingent fee contract specified that no fee can be recovered if there is not any retrieval. The appellant continued filing 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 call for a quantum meruit fee because there was no recovery and this was written in the contract.The court then oscillated with the California rule versus the untried York rule. chthonic the California rule, attorneys that are discharged are barred from receiving any recovery if the client did not receive 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 really deserve.Why shouldnt the attorneys receive what they sincerely worked on? They did not request to lifelessness consider the fifty percent, cost, and expenses. All they wanted was money for the time, research, and hard work they put together to provide a petition that they later presented to the client who ended up taking it with her and stalling them by express she had to think about a mathematical operation that she initiated over her deceased common law spouses estate.If a client would walk into an attorneys office and hire 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 jerry-built means of gaining legal help without paying for it. It is not morally 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.