Jones Vs Nelson Case Summary

JONES VS HALL

Legal Environment of Business

Team G:

Pablo Angell
Amanda Hardin
Brandon Weber

BUSI 3303.03
Professor Leslie E. Lenn, JD

TABLE OF CONTENTS
2. Executive Summary
3.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Statement of the Problem

Summary of the Issues

Analysis and Solutions

Recommended Action

1. Type of case: The type of cases leading up to this case are, in order of subject, Recording Communications Without Permission, Resisting Arrest, Violation/ Deprivation of Civil Rights. These cases revolve around the theme of Violation of Civil Rights
Elements
The elements of this case include the following

2. Pertinent Facts:

Legal Background of Case:

On January 28, 2000, Jones was videotaping his friends
Chief Nelson would use the state decision as support of there being probable cause and not violating Jones’s fourth amendment rights. Chief Nelson could say that if the state court could find enough evidence to believe that there was probable cause then there must be some truth to that. We also believe that the defendant and his legal team would try to say they qualify for immunity. They would state that Nelson is entitled to qualified immunity. First they would state they believed that the Washington Privacy Act covered videotaping and that he was entitled to privacy while on the phone. Second, the argument would be that other lawful officers would think that the way that Chief Nelson acted was reasonable. Those are the two ground in which qualified immunity is decided.

The case of Saucier v Katz would be the strongest help for Chief Nelson’s case. In the case of Saucier V. Katz Saucier arrested Mr. Katz in a rough manner during a speech by Al Gore. Saucier said he acted lawfully in denying Katz his first amendment right of petitioning. Saucier felt he was entitled to qualified immunity and the courts ruled in his favoring saying that he did what he did for the better of his surroundings. Other officers would have done the same thing and that is why he qualified for
Chief Nelson would use the state decision as support of there being probable cause and not violating Jones’s fourth amendment rights. Chief Nelson could say that if the state court could find enough evidence to believe that there was probable cause then there must be some truth to that.

We also believe that the defendant and his legal team would try to say they qualify for immunity. They would state that Nelson is entitled to qualified immunity. First they would state they believed that the Washington Privacy Act covered videotaping and that he was entitled to privacy while on the phone. Second, the argument would be that other lawful officers would think that the way that Chief Nelson acted was reasonable. Those are the two ground in which qualified immunity is decided.

The case of Saucier v Katz would be the strongest help for Chief Nelson’s case. In the case of Saucier v. Katz Saucier arrested Mr. Katz in a rough manner during a speech by Al Gore. Saucier said he acted lawfully in denying Katz his first amendment right of petitioning. Saucier felt he was entitled to qualified immunity and the courts ruled in his favoring saying that he did what he did for the better of his surroundings. Other officers would have done the same thing and that is why he qualified for immunity.

6. Projected legal