United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Facts: The respondent Raymond Place was stopped by Federal Agents (DEA) upon his arrival into LaGuardia Airport on a Friday afternoon. The respondent refused to consent to the search of his luggage. His luggage was seized by the agents under suspicion they contained narcotics. The respondent was informed the agents would be obtaining a search warrant from a judge.
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.
I believe that Steve Harmon is innocent. There are many reasons to believe this. For one “bobo” Evans placed him at the crime scene but Mr. Evans and Mr. King according to Mr. Evans testimony were on drugs. So Steve Harmon could have just happened to be their. Since both Mr. Evans and Mr. King were on drugs i don’t believe that their statements are valid.
To: Junior Associate From: Supervising Attorney Re: DC v. Blake Mr. Jonathan Blake, a new client of the firm, recently requested our legal services in a criminal matter. Mr. Blake was recently arrested for possession of a controlled substance by the Metropolitan Police Department. According to Mr. Blake, the facts are as follows: Jessie Smith and his wife are the co-owners of a residence at 3630 16th St. NW, Washington DC, 20015.
B. The police officer tried to make it look like he had a probable cause to search Rodriguez car. C. I believe that Rodriguez was to prevail in court, because the Police officer should not of allowed his dog to sniff Rodriguez car without a warrant and after the dog found something he said he had probable cause but without the dog he didn 't even had a probable cause.
Cops injuries were later attributed to "friendly fire" from each other's weapons. One of the police officers planted marijuana in Johnston's house after the shooting. Later investigations found that the paperwork stating that drugs present at Johnston's house, which had been the basis for the raid, had been falsified. The cops later admitted to having lied when they submitted cocaine as evidence claiming that they had bought it at Johnston's house.
Even the presiding judge for the federal courts asked why would a veteran officer throw away his life for cash and camcorder as stated in ("3 KCK officers plead guilty - KCTV5," 2012) There are several possible reasons why these officers decided to steal these items. One reason why the officers stole these items is simply peer pressure I would say all three officers agreed to take the items for their personal gain. Another reason why I believe
Issue Whether the land title conveyed from the Indian tribes to private persons prior to the American Revolution is accepted in a United States court? Facts Joshua Johnson (plaintiff) inherited a tract of land from his father, who bought the land from the Piankeshaw Indians prior to the American Revolution at which time the Piankeshaw Indians lived on the land. The county of Illinois in which the land was located was created by the State of Virginia after the Declaration of Independence. The land was then conveyed to the United States government by the Virginia delegates to Congress.
This led to circumstantial evidence being admitted and being the basis for
The trial is filled with witnesses who have some kind of motive to testify against Steve, some just out of dislike for him, or some trying to get a break from serving a jail sentence of their own. This case is an uphill battle for
The fiber evidence presented in this case was so overwhelming and simply was the driving force leading to Wayne Williams conviction. I do not believe the prosecution would have been able to obtain the same results without it. The credibility of the FBI forensics investigators and their reputable crime lab made for excellent testimony concerning the fiber evidence at trail, which the defense was simply ill prepared to counter attack its merits (The Atlanta, n.d.). Other evidence was presented in this case, and much of this evidence while certainly impactful on the case and to members of the jury, this evidence alone without the fiber evidence would surely not have held up to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Julie Pawloski Mr. Leavitt Ela 1 May 12, 2023 Why Steve Is Innocent I am writing this to prove why the Judge and juries from Monster by Walter Dean Myers were correct in their final judgment saying Steve was innocent. As for him , he had a lot of evidence proving he was innocent. For example. Lorelle Henry, the key witness , never saw and never heard Steve in the store while she was there. Another piece of evidence is that after the homicide Steve was never compensated by money, which was promised by Mr. King and “Bobo” which they had stolen from the store.
Some felt as if this case was justified others felt it was not. This case was unjustified because it was an racial crime , officer ignored proper procedure however; the only threat was being a 12 year old with a toy gun. Thus case was a racial crime because of how he was identified
But it ended up with him not being charged and that led to protest. That proves that Starr will protect her friends from any danger and or
The discretion of the case was significant in the regard of the defense, which countered some contradicted evidences. The evidences from the trial and the hearing preliminaries have revealed that the children were coached. The testimony showed lack of credibility on the issues and showing the significance of the discretion on the defense. McMartin told his attorney that he did not do it and his attorney used his discretion and believed him.
