Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yi v. Anne Arundel County Police

United States District Court, D. Maryland

September 1, 2016

CHONG SU YI, Plaintiff
v.
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY POLICE, Defendant

          MEMORANDUM

          Ellen L. Hollander United States District Judge.

         In April 2016, Chong Su Yi filed suit against the Anne Arundel County Police, invoking this court's federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ECF 1. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis shall be granted.

         The facts and arguments in this case, as presented by plaintiff, are set forth below.

3. Federal Question:
When six amendment states; "in all criminal prosecution, " i.e. prosecution could not happen without victim; ipso facto lack of Miranda; i.c. Miranda v Arizona was not applied to victim; lawyer was not provided to indigent; thus report took 3 hrs. and 30min Exhibit A; is it violation of sixth amendment?; Writing number on business card; the moment police hand it over, and plaintiff is legally allowed, free to walk away is it official police document, by virtue of its existence; if it is not, does it violate due process of the law; and when officer says Call police station for rest; does it violate due process of the law?
If so and this becomes adjudicated; in preamble of Constitution 'establish justice' and ‘... of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, " does it mean Justice is for Plaintiff, does justice excludes Posterity; because Plaintiff does not have plaintiff's posterity or justice for Posterity must exist regardless?; If so when report took 3.5hrs to develop; is it violation of illegal search and seizure in 4th amendment; because its beyond 'amount of time to do back ground check'?;
If, 4th amendment states "rights of people's effects shall not be violated without due process of the law"; then is 3.5hrs block of time; "effects" in meaning of rights of people in 4th amendment; because sovereignty of individual allows liberty, and in liberty there is freedom of choice; Obegefell v Hodges (2015); thus when police took 3.5hrs; did it violate liberty of plaintiff worth 3.5hrs?; If so in constitution a race could not be given preferential treatment; where report took 3.5hrs; could white police officer use his personal experience; even if its department certified, approved, white officer may use white experiences; but without being trained; in racial diversity program; e.g. sexual harassment training; isn't allowing white officer to use white experience violation of first amendment's state's right to categorize; state's best interest; thus white officer using white experience to write incident report unconstitutional?
4. Facts of the case are:
Theft took place in golden corral; case number [TDC 16 CV 1151 ]; now adapts 16-CV 1151; as if it is written in here; First Officer Matt Johnson; did not provide police report; e.g. incident report; and left; second officer did not show up; as per Store Manager, Second officer stated restaurant as too crowded; third officer is en route; and by 9:30pm Evidence A was produced.

ECF 1 at 2-3.

6. Argument of the cases are:
Sixth amendment says 'all' prosecution; then it must include victim and perpetrator; and Miranda must be read to victim as well as perpetrator; This case lacked Miranda was not read to victim; therefore, the six amendment prosecution could not take place; police did not do proper job; When court rules criminal prosecution could not take place; it must be for all posterity as of the moment court rules thusly.
Under Terry Stop; police officer may stop; public to do what need done; in traffic; as long as it takes to do back ground check; in foot as long as to pat down the person; and ascertain purpose; when officer gives permission; to leave the area; the incident has concluded.
There was no terry stop; but police decided to place seizure on plaintiff; lack of perpetrator; and because Miranda was not read; what took place became interrogation; without lawyer; when plaintiff was ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.