Ronald Watts, 48 years old, a District tactical sergeant, and a patrol officer named Kallatt Mohammed, 47 years old, were both parts of the 2nd District tactical team in the Chicago Police Department. On the eve of February 13, 2012, both officers were formally charged in the U.S. District Court of Chicago by the Northern District of Illinois United State Attorney, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, with government funds theft. Mr. Watts was an 18-year police veteran and Mr. Mohammed was with the Chicago PD for 14 years. Their arrest was due to unseal complaints of police criminal misconduct by two whistleblower officers, Shannon Spalding and Daniel Echeverria , followed by a thorough investigation of, special of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert D. Grant and the police department’s Internal Affairs Division.
1. Case Title and Citation ■ Washington v. Glucksberg 521 U.S. 702,117 S. Ct. 2258,117 S. Ct. 2302; 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 2. Procedural History The United States Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for any individuals to help another person to commit suicide.
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: 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.
Ogden vs. Gibbons was a controversial court case that was debated in 1824 after Aaron Ogden filed a restraint against Thomas Gibbons. Ogden and Gibbons were former business partners in the steamboat industry and for three years they successfully worked together throughout waterways in New York. Unfortunately Gibbons decided to operate another steamboat that came in conflict with Ogden’s steamboat and this is when Ogden filed a restraint against Gibbons. Ogden’s complaint was that he no longer wanted Gibbons to operate steamboats in New York waters. This was an important court case because the court had to figure out who had the power to control navigation in interstate waterways.
Gene Brucker offers insight into the lives and minds of 15th century Italy through a court case about Giovanni and Lusanna’s involving the legality of their marriage. He utilized several primary sources to provide a descriptive narrative of this case. Even though Brucker used primary sources, primarily notarial sources, these show clear evidence of bias, and in turn these biases are reflected in his work. To begin with, Brucker’s primary material falls into the legal category, notarial sources, from Ser Filippo Mazzaei. Although these legal works supply the evidence and court battle that occurred, these don’t provide a clear voice to the defendant, Giovanni, nor the plaintiff, Lusanna.
The Melton v. Young case is about a high school student that was suspended for wearing a jacket with a Confederate flag. The issue that was discussed is, whether or not the school officials could suspend a student for wearing Confederate flag. The clothing sparking racial tension was also discussed. The racial tension from the previous year was an argument for the defense because it can be said that the jacket could have refueled this. The defense also stated that the Melton family was informed of the new rules and chose to break them.
The court cases Goldberg and Wheeler do not stand for the proposition that only welfare benefits for people in extreme circumstances are entitled to pre-termination hearings. However, this is one situation where cutting off benefits with little or no notice could affect the well-being of the family or person. Any programs that offer they type of assistance people rely on to survive could benefit from pre-termination hearings, not just the welfare program. Welfare is one of the main public assistance programs, although I think housing assistance and food stamps might fall into the welfare category, they are also in need of a pre-termination hearing. In the Goldberg and Wheeler cases, California and New York did not want to give anyone a hearing
A. Castro is likely an “owner” of the dog because the injury took place after he allowed the dog inside his house, and took care of Puccini when he gave her a treat and bowl of water. A person is considered an owner of an animal, with or without the permission of the legal owner, if that person voluntarily assumes responsibility of an animal, or exerts a level of control over that animal. Steinberg v. Petta, 501 N.E.2d 1263, 1265-67 (Ill. 1986); Beggs v. Griffith, 913 N.E.2d at 1234; Docherty v. Sadler, 689 N.E.2d at 334. A court will not exclude a person from ownership because of the short contact with that animal.
United States v. Miller Kalyn Reading The case of the United States vs Miller is an intriguing case to say the least. It started with two men trying to transport sawed off shotguns and ended with a little bit of blood and some prison time. This was a case best explain by Doctor Brian L Frye in his paper The Peculiar Story of United States vs. Miller. “On June 2, 1938, Miller and Layton were both indicted on one count of violating 26 U.S.C. § 1132(c) by transporting an untaxed short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce.
United States (Court, 1983)Supreme Court HECKLER v. CAMPBELL, (1983) No. 81-1983 Argued: February 28, 1983 Decided: May 16, 1983 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us (Heckler vs. Campbell, 1983)-supreme-court/461/458.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/461/458 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/461/458 Carmen Campbell was a 51- year old woman who worked as a maid and a seamstress in a hotel. Ms. Campbell was born in Panama where she had been educated until the sixth grade.
C. Precedent The law is unconstitutional not only due to the meaning of the text itself, but also from many cases of precedent. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) have already established the importance of the Second Amendment, but there are other cases as well that back up the courts decision claiming the ban on carrying a concealed weapon is unconstitutional. In Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. 90, (KY 1822), established that the right to bear arms was for defense against themselves and the state. This case consisted of a man carrying a concealed weapon in his cane and it is similar to the one in which we face today.
The R.v. Ewanchuck (1999) case is a case that shook the Canadian criminal justice system and is considered by feminists a victory because the judge’s decision reflected rape myths and the case is being praised with addressing rape myths in the criminal justice system. The details of the case are; Ewanchuck invited a 17 year- old woman into his van for a job interview ( Dumont, 1999, p. 102-109). After the job interview concluded, Ewanchuck insisted that the woman see his paintings, which were in a trailer behind the van ( Dumont, 1999, p. 102-109). Ewanchuck then took the woman inside the trailer and began to make a series of sexual advances ( Dumont, 1999, p. 102-109).
In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.
The Dred Scott v. Sandford case had the greatest impact on Race Relations in America because it created a legitimate definition of the citizenship. Scott, a former slave, stated that because of his occupancy in a free state, he is a free man. The other side argued that Scott was still a slave and according to the fifth amendment, no person (master) can be deprived of their property. The initial impact of the case was in favor of the slave owner but this decision was overturned by the adoption of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment. The thirteenth amendment ended slavery and the fourteenth amendment granted citizenship to everyone born or naturalized in the United States included former slaves who had been freed after the Civil War.
