United States V. Naghani Case Study

Michael Kingsley, a petitioner who was awaiting a trial in Monroe county jail, filed a lawsuit against jail staff who used excessive force against him. On the evening of May 20, 2010, an officer performing a standard cell check noticed a piece of paper covering the overhead light in the jail cell Kingsley was being held in. The officer told him to remove the piece of paper, but Kingsley insisted that someone else covered the light. Several officers told Kingsley to get rid of the paper, but each time, he refused to do so. The jail administrator, Lieutenant Robert Conroy, ordered Kingsley to remove the paper the next morning, but he refused again. Lieutenant Conroy then told Kingsley that officers would remove the paper and he would be moved to a receiving cell.

(2) it was at least reasonable for jury to determine that, absent warnings, hiring one guard who primarily remained inside store was an insufficient response to known, repeated history of attacks on premises; and

While on scene Leslie TAPIA continued to yell at Hope BAKER and Ernesto TAPIA at an unreasonable and excessive level. Leslie TAPIA was requested to stop yelling on numerous occasions, but would not comply with our request. I informed her that she would be arrested if she did not stop yelling. She continued to yell at Hope BAKER and Ernesto TAPIA while she was inside the home as well as outside while standing in the street. Leslie TAPIA was again advised that if she did not stop yelling she would be arrested for persistent disorderly conduct. She refused to comply and continued to yell.

This incident is inconclusive. This is because both the participant and the HCSS stories were different. Each accused the other of having attitude and mistreatment.

On June 21, 2016, members of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Sixth District were dispatched to a call for service for an “Assault in Progress”. Officers were met by the complainant who reported that the defendant invited her over to his residence and when she arrived the defendant already had another female companion at his home. The defendant began to insult the complainant at which point she tried to leave his home. The defendant grabbed the complainant by her hair and punched her in the face and body. The complainant refused medical treatment.

“Brian Clark was instigating Patrick Raymond to fight him. About 5 minutes later, Brian told Patrick that he was using his phone to record Patrick on live Facebook. Patrick asked Brian to prove to him that he was recording him by showing him his phone and when Brian put his phone to Patrick’s face Patrick grabbed the phone to turn it off. Brian had earphones in his ear connected to his phone when Patrick grabbed it, causing him to fall out of his seat. Brian then stood up, walked up to Patrick and punched him in the face. Brian then began to choke Patrick before slamming him to the ground. As Patrick was on the ground covering his head, he received numerous punches to his face, ear, and also a kick to his upper chest before another student stepped in to break up the altercation. Patrick suffered bruises and swelling to his face as a result of the assault. Officer Tennyson was made aware of a video that displayed the assault that was placed on social media. The video displayed Brian using a chokehold on

In Assault section 21 a it states, “he acts intending to cause harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person or an imminent apprehension of such contact,”. Section b states, “and the other is thereby put in such imminent

The Dusky V. United States was a case that began to question the competency of people that have committed crimes. On September 10, 1958 Milton R. Dusky was charged with unlawfully transporting, a 15 year old, across state lines from Missouri to Kansas with two other young boys, Leonard Dischart, age 13, and Richard H. Nixon, age 16. The young girl had known Nixon before she knew Dischart; therefore, she accepted the invitation when the two boys and the defendant asked if she needed a ride to the drug store. Dusky and the boys, after leaving the drug store, had decided to go for drinks, that Dusky had provided. Intoxicated, they debated whether or not they should have sexual relations with the young girl with “the type of girl she is.” Returning

Upon my arrival I observed a white female identified as Whitney Anderson who exited her vehicle as I attempted to park my patrol unit on the side of the road. As I was exiting my patrol unit Whitney began to yelling at Darrell Anderson. As I was approaching the two subject I instructed Whitney to stop multiple times. Whitney continued to yell at Darrell therefore I started to place Whitney into hand restraints. At this time Whiney started to pull away from me and continued to yell at Darrell. I had placed one of Whitney’s hands into the restraints and her children began to get out of the vehicle. Whitney was still trying to pull away

However, the father‘s act of pointing a loaded pistol at his son and the act of hitting him on his face with his hands are assaults. It was quite possible for the judges to charge the accused with assault for acting menacingly, even with the actual threats took place, such as “ I ll blow your face .’’ When the case came before the reviewing judges, Innes, J asked a question about the review of the

1983.” The District Court applying a four-factor test to determine, at the close of Graham’s evidence, when excessive use of force touches off of a 1983 cause of action inquiring inter alia, whether the force had been applied in a good-faith effort in order to maintain and reinstitute discipline or maliciously and sadistically just for the purpose of causing harm to an individual. The Court of Appeals affirmed, this test being endorsed as generally pertinent to claims of constitutionally excessive force being brought against any and all government officials, Graham’s argument that it was errored to require Graham to prove that the alleged excessive use of force was applied in malice and sadistically in order to cause harm to him. Reasonable jury holding that the Johnson v. Glick test resulted in the conclusion that the amount of force applied was not considered a constitutionally excessive

1. How, if at all, can you distinguish Greber from other instances of payment for professional services? Suppose the percentage Dr. Greber paid to the physicians had not exceeded Medicare’s guideline? Would that payment still amount to prohibited remuneration in this court’s eyes?

Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) The Court held that a defendant must prove there is a legitimate expectation of privacy for a search to be challenged.

It should be noted Brown also told me a few weeks ago on two separate occasions

The agents of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) have become notorious for their insolence and ludicrous actions during bag checks and screenings. TSA agents have been known to cause many instances of harassment and other inconveniences to the average passenger. A TSA agent once admitted that the first question to ask to anyone in a wheelchair is if he is able to stand for a pat-down search. If someone is in a wheelchair, it is likely that he is unable to stand. Even when he is sitting, the TSA agent must ask him to move so that they can check under his bottom (“Confessions of a TSA agent: we’re all a bunch of airheads”, 2013). The TSA has caused inconveniences to passengers trying to board. Ashley Brant from Washington D.C. was told she may not be able to return home after a TSA agent told her that her District of Columbia ID was not valid because the TSA requires a state ID to board, and apparently, the U.S. district does not count as a state (Davis, 2014). There have been many instances such as those, resulting in the TSA becoming associated with absurd rules and incompetent employees. The TSA, established November 19, 2001, as a direct result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, was designed to fortify the security of the nation’s transportation systems. The administration consists of approximately 50,000 officers, inspectors, air marshals, and managers who are supposed to provide adequate security for the nation’s modes of transportation and to