SYNOPSIS: On 6-25-15 the suspect, Matthew Rutledge, was arrested for possession of stolen property, 496(a) PC, and possession of an access card with intent to use, 484 E (D) PC. His companion, Rassan Clayton was released at the scene with no arrest. On 6-30-15 the district attorney requested additional information for the case. DETECTIVE SUPPLEMENTAL FOLLOWUP:
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.
Name of Case: LaChance vs. Erickson Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court Parties and their roles:. LaChance, director, Office of Personnel Management petitioner; Erickson et al Responded Relevant facts: Federal employees made false statements to agency investigators with respect to their misbehavior. The legal issue(s) raised: The legal issue raised was that the respondents, federal employees were charged by their agencies because each of them made false statements to the agency investigators with respect to their misconduct.
Kaelea Tullly Moran v. Burbine Case When detained by the Police in Cranston, Rhode Island for breaking and entering Brian Burine was immediately given his Miranda Rights and he denied his right to a lawyer. Though the entire process the piece seemed to have obtained evidence they Mr. Burbine had committed a murder in near by providence Rhode Island. He confessed to the breaking and entering and tot the murder when he waved his rights. Because Mr. Burbine’s sister knew he had an appointment with a certain lawyer she called his office but he specifically was not available but his partner was.
Case Name, Citation, Year Cook v. Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA), 09-cv-00547 M.D. Fla. (2009) Facts of the Case: On June 16, 2009 parents of female athletes at FHSAA member schools filed suit against the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging that the newPolicy 6 discriminates against female students according to Title IX by reducing school participation in completions by 40 percent at the varsity level and 20 percent at the sub-varsity level. The plaintiffs also stated a complaint that male driven sports where exempt from this action because cheerleading was not recognized as a sport thus breaking the Title IX law. Issues: Why did Policy 6 reduced the number of competitions
Gideon V. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963) is the case I have chose to brief. According to US courts website “Clarence Earl Gideon was an unlikely hero. He was a man with an eighth-grade education who ran away from home when he was in middle school. He spent much of his early adult life as a drifter, spending time in and out of prisons for nonviolent crimes. ”The Petitioner within the case was Clarence Earl Gideon.
The second case filed against the University of Michigan is Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). The suit was filed by non-minority applicants who alleged the university for using race as the prevailing factor in admitting students and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI and Section 1981 (Green, 2004, p. 144). In their defense, the University of Michigan argued that the university seeks to ensure their ability to make unique contributions to the character of the student body by enrolling a “meaningful number” of underrepresented minority students (Green, 2004, p. 147). In contrast to the Gratz case, the district court did not follow Justice Powell’s rationale in the Bakke case and the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
The case of R. v. Schoenborn is a troubling case involving the death of three children and the defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This defence must be critically analyzed along with the evidence and expert opinions as it could absolve the accused of the charges. As well, the precedent that the verdict provides is critical to the legal system and its future implication and thus give the decision more importance. After a thorough examination of the facts, it is evident that the verdict of the Supreme Court of British Columbia is correct and reflects the administration’s objectives and beliefs. This will be demonstrated through the application of legal principles and elements.
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.
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,
Kyra Rubin Professor Jennifer Larson English 105i 5 October 2015 Unit 2, Feeder 1 In the 2013 case of Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court held that a mandatory minimum sentence of life-without-parole is an unconstitutionally disproportionate punishment for a juvenile. Under the Eighth Amendment protections from cruel and unusual punishment, the Court held that mitigating factors must be considered in determining sentencing for juveniles. The issue in Montgomery v. Louisiana is concerned with whether or not this rule can be applied retroactively; doing so would potentially provide relief for the inmates who are currently serving time after being sentenced to live-without-parole as juveniles, and who didn’t have such mitigating factors considered. Issue: Does the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, which held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory sentencing schemes that require children convicted of homicide to be sentenced to life in prison without parole, apply retroactively?
Savannah Gitchel Mrs. Hodges-Bond Cambridge US History 3 October 2016 Meeting of the Minds Dred Scott The Dred Scott v. Sandford case was a pivotal point in leading America to civil war. The Supreme Court stated that even though Scott was in a free state, he was still the property of his owner and had to remain that way. Abolitionists were angered even further by this decision, whether they wanted complete abolishment, or just to stop the spread of slavery into the North. Reversely, the south was overjoyed with the decision.
The Supreme Court priorities from the time period of 1790 to 1865 were establishing the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was instrumental in founding the Federal Court System. The framers believed that establishing a National Judiciary was an urgent and important task. After the installation of Chief Justice John Marshall who “used his dominance to strengthen the court 's position and advance the policies he favored” (Baum 20). However, in the decision of the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 was an example of the power he exuded “in which the Court struck down a Federal statute for the first time” (Baum 20). This created some internal conflict between Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson, however Marshall was able to diffuse this with
Mens rea is the element of a crime which alludes to what is known as the “guilty mind”. The case of R v Mohan [1976] QB 1 , the case dealing with the meaning of intention in the context of the offence of murder, James LJ clarified that intention meant ‘aim’ or ‘a decision to bring about a certain consequence’ whilst mens rea is generally related with motive what it more directly links to the notion of intention. There are two types of intention, direct intention and oblique intention .Oblique intention is difficult for a jury to infer and difficult for a prosecutor to prove. Defining mens rea of intention precisely is very difficult over the years.
In the said case, the counsel for the appellants tried to argue before the Court of Appeal that the decision in the case Rama Chandran v The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor was wrong. Because the court was heard in the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal disagreed. It was also
