Title: Chimel v. California Date/Court: United States Supreme Court, 1969 Facts: This case deals with Ted Chimel, who they suspected robbed a local coin shop. On September 13, 1965, several officers from Santa Ana came to the home of Chimel with an arrest warrant for his expected involvement in the burglary. The officers arrived at the door and identified themselves to Chimel’s wife and asked if they could come into the home, she agreed and showed them into the house. While in the house the officers waited 10-15 minutes until Chimel came home from work.
Case Briefs: Case: State v. Marshall, 179 S.E. 427 (N.C. 1935). Opinion by: Stacy C.J. Facts: A homicide occurred at the defendant’s filling station. At the filling station the deceased was previously drinking and was sweet talking the defendant’s wife in a whispering conversation. The deceased was asked to leave the building, yet the defendant order him more than once.
The case of California v. Greenwood involves police who were investigating a potential drug trafficker, Greenwood. The police, who were acting on information that suggested that Greenwood could possibly be engaged in narcotics trafficking, obtained trash that Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his home. Considering the trash included items indicative of narcotics use, the police then obtained warrants to search Greenwood’s home, discovered controlled substances during their searches, and subsequently arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges. The issue in this case was whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of trash left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.
Name of case: Reed v. King Court: California Court of Appeals Citation: 193 Cal. RPTR. 130 (1983) Parties & their roles: Dorris Reed (Plaintiff/petitioner); Robert King (Respondent/defendant) Facts: Dorris Reed purchased a home from Robert King; Mrs. Reed paid $76,000 for this property. Mrs. Reed found out from her neighbors once she had moved in, that Mr. King failed to disclose that ten years earlier a mother and her four children had been murdered in the home. She also learned the house carried a stigma due to its history, which causes appraisers to evaluate the true worth of the home to be $65,000.
United States v. Lopez was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The issue of the case was that It exceeded to the power of Congress which had no say over it because the case had nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic activity. The case United States v. Lopez involved Alfonzo Lopez Jr., Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Congress. Unites States v. Lopez was about a 12th grader named
Circle Justice vs. US Criminal Justice System Do you want to know the differences between the Circle Justice System and the US Criminal Justice System? Circle Justice is a punishment but it’s also a way of healing. The Circle has lots of great pros but also has cons.
MILLERSBURG — Despite a plea for leniency expressed by the victim, a Sugarcreek man was unable to overcome a long history of criminal convictions and a bond violation when a Holmes County judge on Wednesday sentenced him to prison for making unwanted phone calls and threats to several members of a family over a period of months. David Lamar Schrock, 43, of 2578 State Route 39, previously pleaded guilty in Holmes County Common Pleas Court to two counts of telephone harassment and one count of menacing by stalking. In exchange for his guilty plea, the state agreed to dismiss two additional counts of telephone harassment and three counts of menacing by stalking. The charges are made more serious because Schrock was convicted, in January 2016,
The California and United States Constitution are similar in many ways, an example that manifests this is in article three of the California Constitution, which divides the state government into three branches Legislative, Executive, and Judicial which is the same construct as the United States.1 However the two constitutions do differ as California's constitution orders a different separation of powers analysis than the United States. This is not only a result of the differences in language between the United States and California Constitutions, but also because of the inherent differences between the powers of both the state and federal government. The U.S government is restrained by the limited powers that are listed in its Constitution,
The 2nd level is the County Level Courts. County Courts have jurisdiction over juvenile matters, misdemeanors with fines greater than 500$ or jail sentence, and probate matters. District Courts are the 3rd level. They have jurisdiction over felonious matters, divorce cases, land titles, and contested elections. The 4th level is the Courts of Appeals, which is the final step before the
Knowledge Paper on Federalism: Federal Versus States Was the raid legal ? The raid was not legal because California had enacted laws to patients to use medical marijuana. The center was legitimate and they were not doing anything wrong. The Compassionate Use Act was approved and passed in California at the state level.
Going up from there are the circuit courts, the district courts of appeal, and the supreme court. There are 67 county courts, one in each county. These courts are of limited jurisdiction and deal with only minor offenses. The circuit courts are the states courts of original jurisdiction and are courts of record. They also hear appeals from the county courts.
A municipal court is an example of limited jurisdiction, which can preside over a “dogs at large” case for example. General Sessions Court would
Right and duties are two very similar things, they are correlatives. A right is the capacity of a person with the aid of the law to require or make another person to perform. A duty is the obligation the law imposes on a person to make him or her perform. For instance you have the right to live, but you have a duty not to get into danger, both for yourself or others. Under the law for instance, you have the right to work, but you are obligated to follow the legal standards and the law.
Specialized Courts Specialized courts are commonly known as the problem-solving courts that promote positive reinforcement, support behavior modification, decrease victimization, and reduce recidivism. Examples of specialized courts include drug court and mental health courts. A community might benefit from establishing a specialized court such as a drug court because it follows a comprehensive model that concentrates on reducing criminal actions through treatment and rehabilitation services with the focus being on substance abuse addiction and identifying the cause without jeopardizing public safety and due process (Specialized Courts, 2013).
The hierarchy of courts of Malaysia begins with the Magistrates’ Court, followed by the Sessions Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and finally is the Federal Court of Malaysia. There are generally two types of trials, criminal and civil. The jurisdiction of the courts in civil or criminal matters are contained in the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 and the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. Article 121 of the Constitution provides for two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the High Court in Malaya, and the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak. Thus this creates two separate local jurisdiction of the courts – for Peninsular Malaysia and for East Malaysia.
