On Feb. 2, 2002 a couple from Phoenix left on a trip to Tucson and were never heard from again – but now, a little more than 16 years later, Brian James Ferry stands accused of the alleged murders of Charles Martin Russell and Catherine Nelson. According to the Nicol Green, a prosecuting lawyer, Russell and Nelson drove up to Tucson to purchase a motorcycle being sold by Ferry. He had placed a false advertisement in the Arizona Republic and was selling the nonexistent motorcycle for $12,000.
Facts: Rudy Stanko was driving on the Montana State Highway 200 when he was pulled over by Officer Kenneth Breidenbach, a member of the Montana Highway Patrol. Stanko had been driving his vehicle at a steady 85 miles per hour at a location that was “narrow, had no shoulders, and was broken up by an occasional frost heave.” This location also included curves and hills which obscured vision of the roadway head. The actual roadway held no other drivers at this time during the day. Stanko had been driving his new 1996 Chevrolet Camaro, with brakes, tires, and a steering wheel that were all in perfect operating conditions.
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Facts: The respondent Raymond Place was stopped by Federal Agents (DEA) upon his arrival into LaGuardia Airport on a Friday afternoon. The respondent refused to consent to the search of his luggage. His luggage was seized by the agents under suspicion they contained narcotics. The respondent was informed the agents would be obtaining a search warrant from a judge.
Karla Coronel Chapter 20 Problems 6) In my opinion the director is not responsible for the destroyed antiquity. For the following reasons: The agent's careless actions were not within his job. If the agent acts negligently out of his employment with the principal, the principal is not liable for damages caused by the actions of the agent.
In the article “Uber Sends Lobbyists to Help Reshape California Laws” by Alison Vekshin it states that “The San Francisco company's lobbyists are pushing lawmakers to exempt its drivers from obtaining commercial licenses before they can ferry passengers” (1). According to Vekshin “Uber has spent almost $1 million since 2013 on lobbyists in California” (1) in order to push for the legislation they want passed. As well Vekshin states that Uber is “backing legislation that would let the companies charge split fares for shared rides and a bill that would exempt its drivers from having to get commercial license plates” (2). This is a threat to interest groups that support taxicab and limousine companies because it is stealing business from those
Personally, Sally does not have a defense under the First Amendment. This is similar to Roulette v. City of Seattle. Sally has the right to her freedom of expression, but that does not include her sitting or lying. Sally was blocking an area of the sidewalk that is considered a commercial area between 7:00 A.M.-9:00 P.M. and that is not permitted. This statute makes it where access to buildings are easier therefore blocking it creates congestion and it interferes with the access to it.
In the case of Riley V. California, Mr. Riley was stopped on a traffic violation, which led to his arrest on weapons charges. The officer searching Riley’s incident to arrest seized a cell phone form Riley’s possession. There was information on the phone and repeated use of a term associated with a street gang. Hours later a gang detective examined the phone’s digital contents and based in part on photographs and videos found, the State charged Riley in connection with a shooting that occurred a few weeks earlier. They sought an enhanced sentence based on Riley’s gang membership.
Why 2nd Amendment Is So Popular Background Information The second amendment is probably the most controversial amendment in the Bill of Rights. The second amendment is stated in the Bill of Rights as, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"(“Second Amendment”) This could mean that you have the right to possess a small gun for self-defence purposes only, but the real meaning is a very controversial argument. Focusing on this amendment is important because it is a very disputed amendment still debated today.
The 5 who had been jail sued New York City in 2003 for malicious prosecution. They also included racial discrimination, and emotional distress in the law suits. The city refused to settle the suits for a decade under then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg. It is hard for the city to say we mess up on an grand scale because the city 's lawyers felt they would win. However, after Bill de Blasio became Mayor and supported the settlement.
Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of America, 254 U.S. 143 (1920) U.S. Sup. Ct. Facts: 1886 marked the invention of a caramel-colored soft drink created by John Pemberton. Coca-Cola got its name after two main ingredients, coca leaves and kola nuts. The Coca-Cola Company is suing Koke Company of America from using the word Koke on their products. They believe Koke Company of America is violating trademark infringement and is unfairly making and selling a beverage for which a trademark Coke has used.
Riley v. California 573 U.S. ____ (2014) By: Jonathan Feltis December 16, 2015 Dr. Bobby Lomeli, AJ12 In 2014, the United States Supreme Court reviewed the case of Riley v. California and a very similar case United States v. Wurie, and decided on June 25, 2014, whether or not the data of a cell phone (smart phone) can be searched incident to arrest without a warrant. Before Riley v. California was decided, information about searching the data of cell phones was vague. There were differing rulings by state and federal courts whether or not police can search a cell phones digital contents without a warrant.
The following report is based on Scott v Telstra (1995) a disability discrimination case. Geoffrey Scott, a deaf man proclaimed that he was being indirectly discriminated against by his employees Telstra. This case went to hearing in Sydney from 22nd-24th March 1995, court Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, judge was Sir Ronald Wilson (Inquiry Commissioner). This report outlines the case, shows the relevant legislation and explains how it was breached in the circumstances of the case, shows the case outcomes, recommendations of realistic strategies to be taken place and a conclusion. Geoffrey Scott, who is deaf, complained that Telstra indirectly discriminated against him because they did not provide him with a telecommunication
The author Benjamin Shingler from CBC news addresses the article in a non-bias way. Shingler, expresses the articles point of view by stating details relating to a controversial bill passed in Quebec recently that targets certain ethnicities groups. Throughout, my essay I will be discussing the issues in the article as to why it relates to discriminatory issues in Canada. Moreover, the issues I will be talking about relating to discrimination will be how the articles topic goes beyond Canada’s concept of diversity, targets certain ethnicity groups, and restricts individual’s rights.
