Hi, need to submit a 500 words essay on the topic Studying a.

The paper discusses Trune’s accusation with a view of illustrating the dissenting opinion that there was no false imprisonment.

The accusations of Trune that the farmer intended to confine him within fixed boundaries do not sufficiently prove the crime of false imprisonment because the farmer did not lock him in the firm house. Because the farmer did not lock the farm house, it can thus be argued that there was no false imprisonment because Trune’s freedom was not limited at all. This case can be compared with the Herbst v. Wuennenberg case in which the plaintiffs were asked by the accused to leave before the occurrence of the events which led to the legal suit. This illustrates that in the Herbst v. Wuennenberg case, the freedoms of the plaintiffs was not violated. The case led to a ruling of the appeal court that favored Wuennenberg because sufficient evidence suggested that there was no false imprisonment of the plaintiff (Supreme Court of Wisconsin 1).

The actions of the farmer were motivated by the need to protect his farm from intruders and trespassers and there was no intention of leading to the confinement of the plaintiff otherwise he would have locked him in the firm yard. In the Herbst v. Wuennenberg case, the plaintiffs admitted that they were not intimidated neither threatened by the accused (Supreme Court of Wisconsin 2). On a counter argument, Trune admits that he stayed in the firm house because he feared the possible outcome of the farmer’s actions, which does not adequately substantiate the claims that his life was in immediate danger. The actions of the farmer were inn ordinary sense harmless and the plaintiff has no real evidence to prove that the farmer put him in unbearable danger.

Trune’s arguments however differ with the Herbst v. Wuennenberg case on the trespass issue is compared between the two cases. Like in the case of Herbst and the other plaintiffs, Trune does not defend his reason for being on the farmer’s field.

I will pay for the following essay CJUS 350 DB7. The essay is to be 1 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.

While carrying out the search, it is important that one carries himself as if he is being watched. While being watched is not the subject of interest, the police officer must ensure that he conducts himself in accordance with the law, to the latter. This may also refer to the scope of the search, just as is evidenced by the case law Harris v. United States and Trupiano v. United States.

According to Qureshi (2012), this above is because, failure to stick to the right behavior may lead to the inadmissibility of the evidence that was thus seized and subsequently adduced before the court of law. This makes setting limits related to tolerable behavior a necessity.

If based on interrogation of the suspect, I believe that he is aware of the girl’s whereabouts, I will integrate investigative with negotiation skills to get him to reveal the location of the abducted child. To this end, I will remind the suspect of the severity of the act he may have engaged in, and the lenience that he will be accorded, if he reveals the child’s location. This involves, pursuing all the circumstantial evidence that point to the suspect and discretionally telling the suspect about some of these circumstantial evidence. The suspect is then made aware of the lenience that will be accorded him, if he reveals the child’s location in his own