Dc V. Blake Case Study

Illinois v. Cabelles In 1998 Roy Caballes was pulled over for speeding, the police officers were entirely within the law and their jurisdiction, however, when they hindered the stop and preformed a sniff search they violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The officer Gillette proceeds as he does in all traffic stops and requested Caballes for his license, registration, and insurance and if he had any warrants, Caballes stated he did not, in addition if he had ever been arrested before in which Caballes stated he had not. The officer’s last request to search Caballes vehicle, Caballes kindly stated no. Upon returning to his police cruiser to run a want and warrants check on Caballes, Officer Gillette found out that Caballes had been arrested

United States v. Morrison was a supreme court case about violence against women. In 1944 while enrolled at Virginia polytechnic institute, Christy Brzonkala alleged that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford sexually assaulted her. Both male students were varsity football players. In 1995 Christy filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech 's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty and Crawford was not.

In Bell v. Wolfish, the Supreme Court had to determine if violations of the eight amendments had occurred under the “punitive intent standard” which distinguishes between incarceration and detainment. The court also had to determine if any violations of the eighth amendment had occurred which resulted in cruel and unusual punishment being inflicted upon the inmates who were primarily housed as pretrial detainees. The case alleged that within a new constructed federal jail in New York City

The case was implied a Magistrate Judge, whose brief discoveries and recommendation completed up, and "the Pledge does not slight the Establishment Clause. " The District Court grasped that proposition and released the protestation on July 21, 2000. The Court of Appeals turned around and issued three separate choices talking about the benefits and Newdow 's standing. As it would see it, the offers court consistently held that Newdow has remaining as a watchman to challenge a practice that meddles with his qualification to facilitate the religious direction of his daughter. That holding managed Newdow 's remaining to challenge not only the game plan of the school locale, where his young lady still is enrolled, moreover the 1954 Act of

One primary legislative cause of the difficulties in prosecuting police is the 1986 the United States supreme courts case, Tennessee v. Garner, which did not allows usages of deadly force by an officer unless "the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others" but the rhetorically vague term "good-faith belief" allowed an objective reason to kill and created a barrier in proving an officer is guilty in court system. While this old legislative piece accounts the difficulties in prosecuting police, the traditional unspoken rule of police officers not to report against colleagues cause corruption in the process of prosecution which is another source of

In 1967 two men robbed a bank in Eustace, Texas. One man, with two pieces of tape on his face, went into the bank, pointed a gun at the cashier and demanded the money. His partner waited outside in a stolen getaway car. Wade and his partner were indicted for the robbery and counsel was appointed. About two weeks later, a FBI agent caused the two men to be part of a lineup consisting of five or six other men at which the bank employees were asked to make an identification, and at which the two men were in fact identified.

Business Law Case Study Essay: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S (2014) Facts: The Green family runs and owns Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and skills chain that has over 500 stores and they have over 13,000 employees. Other facts of the case are that the Green family has been able to organize the business around the values of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company as told by Biblical principles, one of which is the belief that the utilization of contraception is wicked. Also, the facts show that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), occupation -founded group health care plans must offer certain sorts of preventative care, for example, FDA-accepted contraceptive approaches.

Our First Amendment within the United States Constitution protects our freedoms of speech, press, and assembly, which are umbrella terms for our right to protest, among others. We, as american citizens, have the right to protest whatever we choose,whether it be a television program, a new law that has been passed, or in the Snyder v. Phelps case, deceased veteran funerals. Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder’s family filed a lawsuit against the Phelps family and their followers, otherwise known as the Westboro Baptist Church, who the Snyder 's felt intentionally inflicted emotional distress whilst picketing Matthew Snyder’s funeral. The United States Supreme Court determined that speech in a public space, cannot be liable for any emotional distress,

On March 17, 2008, the District of Columbia v. Heller case was first argued in the Supreme Court. Dick Anthony Heller, a special police officer from Washington D.C., decided to take his case to court when he was told he could not posses a firearm for self defense. Heller asked the question of whether the Second Amendment does or does not protect the individual right to keep and bear a firearm for self-defense. Heller was fighting against the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, which banned all ownership of a firearm in a person’s home, with the exception of law enforcement. The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 states that all weapons must be “unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.”

Through court cases like District of Columbia v. Heller, the Second Amendment was clarified to extend the right to possess firearms for “traditionally lawful purposes” from simply militia related services. McDonald v. Chicago further expanded the application of the Second Amendment by holding that it was applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, these two cases were tied together as the Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that the right to self-defense was a “fundamental” and “deeply rooted” right which in turn allowed the Supreme Court to rule that based on the 14th Amendment and the precedent established in the Heller case that the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms was applicable to states for the purpose of self-defense. There are three

Joseph Frederick held a banner saying “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at Juneau-Douglas High School during an Olympic Torch Relay on January 24, 2004. The principal of the school Deborah Morse asked Joseph to put the banner away but he refused to do so. Morse took the banner from him and for not putting it away Morse gave Joseph a ten day suspension from school. The principal thought that the banner was encouraging the use of illegal drugs. Joseph took the situation into his own hands and went to court for it saying that his First Amendment, Freedom of Speech was violated.

Within our contemporary society, the Bill of Rights serves as symbol of the basic American freedoms and protects individuals from irrational government policies, which are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. In the Supreme Court case Maryland v. King, the culprit, Alonzo Jay King, utilized the Fourth Amendment after Maryland police arrested him for first and second-degree assault and swabbed his mouth to collect his DNA in order to check for any previous crimes committed. King argued that the practice of collecting DNA was unconstitutional because Maryland did not have a definite reason to analyze his DNA, as this intruded his privacy and that law enforcements would abuse the collection of DNA in order to convict people of unrelated

I. FACTUAL HISTORY On August 16, 2011, Defendant pled guilty for conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. There were no disputed facts at the time of the sentencing. A Presentence Investigation Report was conducted, by the Probation Office, to identify ameliorating

White America will always have an advantage over blacks and it will continue to be this way, whether we would like to admit it or not. African Americans had the same capabilities to do anything a white American could, if not better in many circumstances. Unhappy with the hardships that challenged blacks’ freedom throughout their life, enslaved African American, Dred Scott, made a significant impact which eventually changed the views of slavery. Thus, the court ruling of the Dred Scott v. Sanford was established in 1857 which declared that slaves nor black men who were already free could be granted citizenship in the United States (Dred Scott v. Sandford, n.d.). Scott v Sanford court case was created to emphasize the wrongdoings of slave masters by expressing the poorly acts African Americans face while under the Declaration of Independence.

On balance, the probative value of evidence of Ms. Fitzgerald’s drug use is extremely high and substantially outweighs any risk of either unfair prejudice or undue delay. IV. MS. FITZGERALD’S PRIOR DURG US IS EXEMPT FROM THE PROHIBITON ON HEARSAY UNDER RULE