The County of Los Angeles Versus Mendez 2017, Coursework Example

Case Name: The county of Los Angeles et al. versus Mendez et al. 2017

Factual History: Los Angeles sheriff department got wind from an informant that an armed parolee had been spotted at a particular abode. They swung into action and searched the apartment, two deputies Conley and Person searched the backyard, which unknown to them Mendez and Garcia were sleeping in a shack.

Conley and Person entered the shack finding Mendez and Garcia sleeping in the in bed. The two officers came into their room without a search warrant and forced themselves into the house. Mendez stood up holding a BB gun that he used to kill pests and pointed it at the officers. This prompted the two deputies to open fire on the two shooting them multiple times.

Procedural History: Mendez and Garcia Sued the Two Officers and the County in the District court and pressed forth three charges against the officers and the county. First, they sued them for search without the warrant, they secondly charged them for a knock and announced claim. Lastly, they charged the officers and the county for excessive use of force.

The District Court compensated Mendez and Garcia with afflictions. However, the court did not find the two officers liable for the excessive use of their power. The arbitrator found it necessary for the police officers to use force in the Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386. Moreover, they were convicted according to the Ninth Circuit provocative law. The Act states that a law enforcer is responsible if acts are recklessly provoking a confrontation or intentionally does so.

The court of appeal, however, upholds that the law enforcers were immune to the knock and announce claim earlier found guilty by the Lower Court. The Ninth Court also held the police officers responsible for search without warranty for having violated a written and public law.

Issues Presented: Under the provocative law, did the two officers violet the law by unleashing guns on the two, Mendez and Garcia.

Decision: Yes, the two officers violate the law.

Rule and Application: The provocative code is a theoretical concept in law, which states that if somebody triggers a conflict with to another, then he is held criminally responsible for the ensuing circumstances.

The application of a provocative law, in this case, punishes the officers who took action at that moment. The doctrine of provocative law tames the issue with rogue officers by instituting criminal charges against them.

For this case, the two deputies were criminally responsible for drawing their guns at the Mendez and trespassing on their property without a search warrant. In their defense, they argued through their lawyers that adopting the provocative law against them would result in various implications in the country. First, it will greatly put the safety of the police officers and the public at greater risk this is because it penalizes officers who take reasonable action.

The defense lawyers also argued that such a scenario would present law enforcement officers with a dilemma on whether an action would be constitutional that cannot warrant legal action against them or take action against an impending danger. Such hesitation would often result in catastrophic consequences for the citizens and the officers. Such actions, in the end, could force officers even to police less to reduce their chances of committing civil crimes.

Mendes, on the other hand, countered this by tabling a fact that the safety of the citizens could be compromised by the officers who are shielded by the law, thus taking advantage of this and violating the rights of the citizens. The defense lawyers argued that the provocative law was best in protecting citizens in unconstitutional ways officers are creating that would lead to violent confrontation.

Méndez’s argues that the law as the officer’s lawyers prescribed it would be ensured protection for officers involved in a misunderstanding, but the same law left out on citizens by not providing any legal redress in case there was such a confrontation.

The national association of counties on its part stated that penalizing officers who are on their part have qualified immunity was inconsistent and incoherent. Additionally, they also claimed that the provocative law threatens qualified immunity on officers that risk their lives for the country.

Disposition: The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the officers had erred in their approach as this resulted in the confrontation with the armed civilian and armed police resulting in fatalities to the civilian.

Opinion: Before reading this text, I was not aware of the provocative law and the ability of an officer to be held criminally responsible for triggering a confrontation.

The officers were criminally responsible even before reading this law, entering a residential area without a search warrant is unconstitutional and very criminal in the first.

Holding firearm against an unsuspecting individual can trigger all manner of misunderstanding and violent confrontation.

I fully agree with the Supreme Court ruling that found the officers liable for gross misconduct and violation of the rule of law.