• The most important concern in Tennessee v. Garner is the Fourth Modification, which protects the general public from arbitrary searches and seizures (Tennessee v. Garner, 1985).
• In Maryland v. Kulbicki, Kulbicki was accused of murdering his mistress owing to delinquent little one help funds (Maryland v. Kulbicki, 2015).
• The Ohio v. Clark case facilities on Clark’s maltreatment of a child. Clark’s argument depends on the sixth modification, which supplies him the proper to query a witness (Ohio v. Clark, 2015).
• The upshot of the Tennessee v. Garner case was that the police didn’t have a sound justification to make use of extreme power throughout the suspect’s arrest (Tennessee v. Garner, 1985).
• The conclusion of Maryland v. Kulbicki was that Kulbicki obtained sufficient assist from his counsel, given the circumstances of the occasions and the circumstances of the case (Maryland v. Kulbicki, 2015).
• In Ohio v. Clark, the courtroom decided that Clark posed an imminent risk to the kid, and so the proof was admissible (Ohio v. Clark, 2015). As well as, the instructor’s queries have been supposed to evaluate the coed’s situation and didn’t thus represent legislation enforcement.
• Essentially the most important shift within the Tennessee v. Garner determination was {that a} police officer’s habits will depend on the state of affairs (Tennessee v. Garner, 1985). Since there was no pressing risk to the officer’s bodily security, there isn’t a justification for murdering a suspect. In Maryland v. Kulbicki, the modification was that the assistance equipped by an legal professional relies on the gravity of the case and the prevailing norms of the time (Maryland v. Kulbicki, 2015).
•
The Ohio v. Clark determination emphasised the judicial points of kid abuse and established that the testimony of kids in imminent hazard is enough for a conviction (Ohio v. Clark, 2015). As well as, instructors don’t symbolize police enforcement.