After this incident, the law enforcement officer was sure about the fact that Bryan was distressed mentally and was in urgent need of safety (Wallentine, 2010). When the court examined this case along with other matching cases, it was of the opinion that for analyzing the situation of the convict, the law was not applied rightly for the situation. The law enforcement officer made a mistake by selecting the wrong strategy to deal with the convict. The force option was wrong. There is a further reportage that the officer made use of more than required force in using the TASER against the convict for his own reasons that are still unknown until this juncture.
According to the court, usage of TASER for Bryan was not reasonable since Bryan did not pose an immediate threat to the officer / other person. The decision is enforceable on officers within the 9th Circuit. The judges were of the view that officers are responsible to clearly understand established law (Wallentine, 2010). Another two cases that relate to the usage of TASER namely “Brooks v.
Seattle” and “Mattos v. Aragano” are in the process to be allocated to judges of 9th Circuit Panels to define the law. However, the constitutional explanation is the prerogative of Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rightly applied the principle of Graham v. Connor’s “objective reasonableness”, which evaluates the decorum of why an officer has opted for a specific force tool (Wallentine, 2010). There cannot be two opinions about search and seizure, which come under the category of civil law and common law.
It is a lawful process. According to which, police on suspicion that a crime is committed can search a property in possession of a person and confiscate it to connect as evidence with the crime. In many developed countries, people have the constitutional rights to absolve them from "unreasonable" search and seizure. This has acclaimed the right to privacy. According to this right, implementation of law in order to get search warrant from the competent court of law before any search and seizure is required.
However, in case of seizure of evidence during investigation, the evidence may not acceptable to the court of law (Barry & Whitcomb, 2005). The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as given by Stimson (2004) provides that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ” (p.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples