The following essay will outline the variances of two case” Illinois v. Gates and Spinelli v. United States. It will discuss the Supreme Court requires to establish probable cause for a warrant. Illinois v. Gates In Illinois v. Gates, law enforcement received a letter (that was anonymous) stating that the Gate family was in the drug transporting business, and operating between the states of Florida and Illinois. Upon investigation, law enforcement discovered that Gates had made the purchase of an Air Line ticket, traveling to Florida.
US v. Lopez was a decision handed down by the US Supreme Court in 1995. The case was significant because it was the first ruling to set limits on Congress's power under the Commerce Claus in the Constitution since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Lopez, a student was caught with an unloaded weapon on school grounds that he was allegedly selling. He was arrested under the Gun-Free Zone law. Lopez argued that this law was unconstitutional as it blocked interstate commerce.
On July 15, 2008, Cindy Anthony announced that her two-year old granddaughter Caylee, had not been seen for nearly a month. Also, she wanted her daughter Casey Anthony taken into custody for robbing a car and money. Casey lied many times to investigators and displayed no emotion about her daughters disappearance. On October 14, 2008, Casey Anthony was arraigned by a Florida grand jury on first degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child, and four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. Later, human remains were identified as Caylee's on December 11, 2008, in the woods approximately a quarter of a mile from the Anthony residence.
DNA later cleared Byrd of the crime and everyone involved in the crime even the judge and prosecutors said the best way to clear his name was to pardon him which George W bush didn’t not want to do. George W bush father was once called to be so soft on crime this could have been a personal reason why Bush didn't not want to pardon Byrd. Byrd was release on bail in the summer and still had to pay $185 dollars to clear his name from the crime records. Judge Shaver and with the
There is a publication ban on the names of the accused [father & stepmother] to protect the identity of the boy [son] involved in this case. In the Ontario Provincial Court House in Ottawa, Robert Maranger sentenced the accused [father] to 18 years of imprisonment after Robert Maranger found the accused guilty of torturing his son. Upon sentencing, Robert Maranger made the following statement in court: “I find it extremely difficult to fathom the horrific crime you have committed against your own son. The accused [father] has been convicted of aggravated assault, forcible confinement, failure to provide necessities of life, aggravated sexual assault, and three counts of assault with a weapon.
Aaron Hernandez was once a star tight end in the NFL. Aaron was accused and later convicted of three shootings that killed 3 people and left two others injured. Aaron Hernandez was once one of the greatest tight ends in the NFL. Now Hernandez serves life in prison without peral. Odin Lloyd had been brutally shot 5 times, leaving Aaron Hernandez as the suspect.
Bill Salamander is an outside 3rd party consultant working in the hospital medical records department. The terms of the Business Associate contract has been approved and signed by Mr. Salamander 's employer to abide the hospital 's compliance and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) policies.
Lindsay Weeks Legal Brief 1. Title and Citation Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 (1998) 2. Facts of the Case This case dealt with the introduction of the Line Item Veto Act which merged two primary acts that caused immense controversy among Congress. The first provision “gave the president the power to rescind various expenditures, it established a check on his ability to do so”.
I do agree with the sentence imposed on Jerry Sandusky, just like I believe most people who followed this trial did. He will most likely end up not making it out of prison, the judge made this decision for many reasons. Sentencing is one of the most difficult jobs of the judge, seeing as the a judge cannot just give out any sentence he must abide by guidelines and stipulations (Bohm & Haley, 2014). During this trial Jerry Sandusky was sentenced to more than 30 years but not more than 60 (UPI Newstrack, 2012). This sentencing was efficient for a multitude of reasons, even though he could have been given more time, and it is explained by the judge that he could have done so.
An organization already in crisis not only requires swift action to correct the situation, it also requires they inform the public of their knowledge as well as display the actions being put into place to remedy the problem and support for those directly affected immediately (Crandall et. al., 2014). This is one of the areas the officials at Penn State failed in their response to the scandal (Stern Strategy Group, 2012). The board of trustees did act swiftly in their termination of former university president Greg Spanier and former head coach of the football team Joe Paterno following the Grand Jury indictment of Jerry Sandusky in 2012. Consequently, the action was still delayed since they had been made aware of the pending indictment in early 2011.
The danger arising from such practice is that the people do not have a voice if judges become unwilling to recognise fundamental rights. One example of how legislation is infringing on fundamental rights is seen in Fardon v Attorney-General (Queensland) . 12 In this case, there was debate as to whether legislation allowing the Supreme Court to order the continued detention of serious sex offenders once their original sentence had been served was constitutionally valid if the person presents a serious risk of re-offending. In effect, a person could be kept in prison in the absence of committing a new crime and without the need to show mental illness or other symptoms which would normally justify extended detention.
On the off chance that you had been a standard general population inhabitant of Chicago in the 1920s, when Al Capone was crowd supervisor of the city and FBI Operator Elliot Ness was endeavoring to convey him and his underworld association to equity (capture, arraignment, trail, and conviction) for bootlegging, homicide, blackmail, and numerous other capital violations, would you have voted in favor of Capone on the off chance that he had keep running for the workplace of Chicago Chairman? What might you have done if mayoral applicant Capone had conveyed, through one of his envoys, an envelope to you containing five hundred dollars and a note saying, "I'd welcome your vote" or "Better vote in favor of me, or something bad might happen"? All things considered, the present and exceptionally practically identical circumstance encompassing the criminal
The Jerry Sandusky trial began in 2012 and was held in Centre County, Pennsylvania. Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of 48 counts and sentenced to 30 to 60 years in jail (Curry, 2015). The details of the case are horrific in nature, and worse is five men were made aware of the incidents and no action was taken to alert authorities. During the trial the victims were led through questions that all pointed toward the trust they had in Sandusky. The university is located in a small town setting where people work hard and have little; Sandusky reaching out to someone was considered a big deal.
What makes this case unique is the manner in which Gowdy approaches Clinton regarding the attack. From his opening statement until his closing remarks, Gowdy does not accuse Clinton directly of any wrong doing. On the contrary he lets the evidence speak for itself. (as most good attorneys do) In doing so, he labels Clinton a “witness”.
Before they announced the mistrial on November 16th, one of the ethical dilemmas that Senator Menendez faced was administrative discretion. It is when a public official is executing a public policy and making daily decisions that affect the lives of the citizen that voted him to represent. When an administrator decides to use it for personal gain, it does not only hurt them but the people as well. For a senator, they might use this administrative discretion to pass bills that will favor the people who give them money. According to the article in October on this case, “Menendez PAC got $600K donation from wealthy doctor pal,” shows that “In exchange, prosecutors say Menendez tried to help Melgen resolve an $8.9 million Medicare billing dispute
