This topic contains a solution. Click here to go to the answer

Author Question: In Saucier v. Katz (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that deciding whether an officer is ... (Read 19 times)

kellyjaisingh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 540
In Saucier v. Katz (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that deciding whether an officer is eligible for qualified immunity depends not merely on whether an officer's actions were objectively reasonable,
 
  but also on whether the officer might have reasonably believed that his actions were reasonable. Was a reasonable officer on notice that his particular use of force would be unlawful? Or could he have reasonably believed that his actions were legal? This test recognizes that there may be behavior that is objectively unreasonable but that nonetheless an officer might have reasonably believed was reasonable. If so, then the officer should be entitled to qualified immunity for his behavior. If VPO Jones had fair notice that a bear hug and take-down were unlawful, and if there is a factual disagreement over whether he used excessive force, then the case should go to trial. The legal standard in Alaska statutesthat a police officer making an arrest may not use any restraint that is not necessary and proper for the arrest or detention of a personis too general to give officers notice that specific actions taken in specific circumstances may or may not be reasonable. There is only one federal case that suggests that a bear hug and take-down may be reasonable, which is not sufficient to establish clear law that says that a bear hug and a take-down are excessive uses of force when applied to an intoxicated and assaultive arrestee. However, if Jones's use of a bear hug was so egregious, so excessive, that he should have known it was unlawful, then the nature of the act gave sufficient warning that a bear hug and a take-down were excessive means to restrain someone. One should not let the lack of explicit law in an area be a substitute for the reasonable officer's common sense. Although the events in this case resulted in tragedy, Jones's conduct was not shocking. He did not do anything we can now, on reflection, say that he should have known at the time was excessive and unlawful. Cognizant of the reality that officers must often make quick judgments which might have unanticipated consequences, we must resist the urge to second guess those actions when things turn out badly. Jones, in acting as he did, could have reasonably believed that his actions were not excessive.
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

The best way to guarantee that the evidence will withstand inquiries about what happened to it from the time of its finding to its presentation in court is to do what?
 
  a. Properly mark evidence for identification
  b. Properly complete evidence submission forms
  c. Properly record the crime scene
  d. All of the above


Related Topics

Need homework help now?

Ask unlimited questions for free

Ask a Question
Marked as best answer by a Subject Expert

krakiolit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
Lorsum iprem. Lorsus sur ipci. Lorsem sur iprem. Lorsum sur ipdi, lorsem sur ipci. Lorsum sur iprium, valum sur ipci et, vala sur ipci. Lorsem sur ipci, lorsa sur iprem. Valus sur ipdi. Lorsus sur iprium nunc, valem sur iprium. Valem sur ipdi. Lorsa sur iprium. Lorsum sur iprium. Valem sur ipdi. Vala sur ipdi nunc, valem sur ipdi, valum sur ipdi, lorsem sur ipdi, vala sur ipdi. Valem sur iprem nunc, lorsa sur iprium. Valum sur ipdi et, lorsus sur ipci. Valem sur iprem. Valem sur ipci. Lorsa sur iprium. Lorsem sur ipci, valus sur iprem. Lorsem sur iprem nunc, valus sur iprium.
Answer Preview
Only 56% of students answer this correctly




kellyjaisingh

  • Member
  • Posts: 540
Reply 2 on: Aug 17, 2018
Wow, this really help


bulacsom

  • Member
  • Posts: 329
Reply 3 on: Yesterday
Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it

 

Did you know?

When blood is exposed to air, it clots. Heparin allows the blood to come in direct contact with air without clotting.

Did you know?

Acetaminophen (Tylenol) in overdose can seriously damage the liver. It should never be taken by people who use alcohol heavily; it can result in severe liver damage and even a condition requiring a liver transplant.

Did you know?

Hip fractures are the most serious consequences of osteoporosis. The incidence of hip fractures increases with each decade among patients in their 60s to patients in their 90s for both women and men of all populations. Men and women older than 80 years of age show the highest incidence of hip fractures.

Did you know?

The most dangerous mercury compound, dimethyl mercury, is so toxic that even a few microliters spilled on the skin can cause death. Mercury has been shown to accumulate in higher amounts in the following types of fish than other types: swordfish, shark, mackerel, tilefish, crab, and tuna.

Did you know?

Long-term mental and physical effects from substance abuse include: paranoia, psychosis, immune deficiencies, and organ damage.

For a complete list of videos, visit our video library