The Supreme Court case of Gonzales v. Castle Rock pertains to the enforcement of a restraining order by the Castle Rock Police Department, and the murder of three young children (Gonzales v. Castle Rock, No. 04-278, 2005). Previously, Jessica Gonzales sought a restraining against her estranged husband Simon Gonzalez because his behavior was scaring her and the children. Furthermore, listed in the testimony of the restraining order, Jessica revealed the facts concerning Simon's disturbing behavior beginning with his attempted suicide in front of her and the girls (Leung, 2005). Additionally, Jessica listed in the restraining order that Simon stalked and broke into their home on several occasions, which placed their daughters and she in fear
The Intolerable Acts: The Breaking Point Two hundred and forty-one years ago, British Parliament passed the Coercive Acts which not only punished the colonists’ defiant behavior but also sparked a war that would change the world forever. The Coercive Acts were a series of four acts that punished the colonists for the Boston Tea Party, they would be restricted until they paid for the tea they dumped into the harbor. The Coercive Acts are a series of acts that were in direct response to the Boston Tea Party that punished the colonists for this event, led to the need for another continental congress meeting, and ultimately impacted the decision for the colonist to declare independence. First, the colonists were punished for the Boston Tea Party. The colonists were punished for the
Petitioner, Triniti T. (“Student” or “Petitioner”) filed her initial request for due process hearing (“Beaumont I”) on February 24, 2014. In the request, Petitioner alleged that the District denied Student a free, appropriate public education (“FAPE”). A hearing was held on June 24-26, 2014 and a Decision following due process hearing (“Decision”) was issues on August 28, 2014. The Decision found that Petitioner had met her burden in proving that the District failed to provide Student with a FAPE in specific areas and the Petitioner was entitled various relief including, but not limited to specific prospective placement, services, assessments, training, devices/equipment for the remainder of the 2014-2015 school year; program development for the 2015-2016 school year, and reimbursement
The exclusionary rule can make evidence inadmissible in the court of law if that evidence was illegally obtained by a police officer. This protects an individual from unlawful searches and serves as an effective deterrent for police misconduct. One could argue that a mistake on the officer’s behalf should not result in the release of a criminal. This assertion would be reasonable if these fourth amendment violations committed by police officers were honest mistakes. Unfortunately, some illegal evidence is found because of deliberate misconduct by the police.
This is in respect to the evidence obtained or evidence given to the defendant or withheld by the prosecution. If the statements affect the decision of the court or the verdict of the jury then Brady violation in this case may affect the due process. It is crucial to Note that the statements are first heard by a court before a ruling on whether the Evidence may affect the case. If the evidence has a probability of changing the verdict then it is said to affect the due process. On the other hand of the disclosed evidence has no probability of affecting the case, then it is not probable to affect the due process.
In the section titled “Intent of the Legislature,” Scalia writes on the rules of statutory construction. His first rule of interpretation has to do with the simple face value of a statute: if the requirements of the law are clear, then intention behind the law does not matter and the judge must rule in accordance with what the law says. On the subject of vague statutes, Scalia writes, “In selecting the words of the statute, the legislature might have misspoken. Why not permit that to be demonstrated from the floor debates? Or indeed, why not accept... later explanations by the legislators... as to what they really meant?”
In a landmark Supreme Court case involving procedural due process safeguards, the court held that certain requirements must be met when an individual parole is revoked. Based on this case, the court found that due process requirements must be invoked in three stages; the defendant’s deferred sentence, completion of certain terms of probations and whether the defendant successful completes the probation terms or not (Oram & Gleckker, 2006). Since the Supreme Court hasn’t addressed the issue of due process clause under a drug treatment court, a few states have addressed the issue using the landmark Morrissey Supreme Court case to apply whether due process requirements is applicable to proceedings (Oram & Gleckker, 2006). Applying due process
This means that the provisions or protection that law would offer would be of no benefit. For example, in 1830, Andrew Jackson clarified how he wanted a spending bill to be spent. While the bill detailed where the road construction was to be, Jackson clarified where the boundaries were. This example does not have to deal with how to interpret the constitution, yet it is an example of what signing statements have done to clarify bills. It would have been ridiculous to veto the bill.
AC3.1: Explain the purpose of meeting minutes ● Purpose: minutes are a written record of notes taken at a meeting. This is notes of items discussed an actions that everyone has agreed to do. It is also used as a register to confirm who is and is not attending and who was and was not there when decisions were made. The overall purpose of minutes is that they serve as a record of the meeting’s procedures and outcomes AC3.2: Explain the legal implications of meeting minutes
Issue 6- Does the Act violate the Procedural Due Process? Conclusion 1.
A long sentence is a form of syntax used by the author to properly explain the term, ‘extrajudicial vigilantism’, all the while providing examples and allowing the reader to fully understand. While forcing the reader with the long sentence, the reader then can connect the term to what is well known and active in the American South.
Hebert Packer created two criminal process models. The two processes that Herbert Packer created are often discussed in classes. Student have to choose which process they agree with most crime control and the due process model. The due process system is the process that I agree with the most. Due process is usually done in the courtroom and with a judge.
Robert Shue believes in transnational duties. In his book Basic Rights, Shue argues that we have an obligation to not only protect the security and subsistence of those within our borders but also those outside of it. He does this through first defining the basic rights of security and subsistence. He follows by stating our duties as moral beings. Then he connects some of our liberties and our basic rights.
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is an arrangement of regulations that are used to regulate sales and exchanges in the U.S. The UCC is not law, but rather statutes that can differ from one state to the next. Article 2 of the UCC is a model statute that has been accepted by each state, aside from Louisiana, and is utilized to settle issues with respect to the sale of merchandise. Products secured by the UCC are characterized as anything that is recognizable and transportable. Products that are secured by Article 2 may incorporate livestock, produce, hardware, or cars.
