A seizure of a person, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, occurs when the police's conduct would communicate to a reasonable person, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the encounter, that the person is not free to ignore the police presence and leave at his will.
Answer:
No. A Police Chief should not promote an Officer with special skills to a supervisory position.
Explanation:
There is a rule for succession. A Police Officer must have served a certain time in rank, and pass a test to be considered. Anything outside of this would have needed to be approved by a higher level of government or it could be seen as preferential treatment which is an ethics violation. Police officers usually become eligible for promotion after a probationary period.
To be a police officers you have to follow a special code of conduct and behavior, making it much different from other professions. The job of a police officer requires much mental toughness, physical fitness, and a level of ethics and morals not every individuals have. In order to for an officer to be promoted into a supervisory position, I feel that the officers up for advancement needs to be able to show a good track record of conduct and behaviors. I feel this can only be achieved through time spent “in rank”
Answer:
The types of damages that would be needed in order for them to be equally happy as they were before the garage fiasco are:
a) Compensatory damages
b) Consequential damages
Explanation:
a) Compensatory Damages are claims paid to directly to compensate the non-breaching party for the value of what was damaged, not done, or performed. For this purpose, compensatory damages will be equal to the cost of getting the garages fixed.
b) Consequential Damages address the costs incurred by the non-breaching party as a result of damages done to other facilities. Example, the sliding off of the garage could have led to flood water damaging some other property, which were not the direct subject of the claim.
Answer:
Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
Supreme Court decision presiding that the Fourth Amendment's defense in contradiction of unreasonable explorations and appropriations must be prolonged to the states in addition to the federal government. This upturned Polka v Connecticut, asserting that defense from double jeopardy does relate in state courts.
Explanation: the court looked at the fourteenth amendment to make their decision and looks like they could`t decide
