• P alleges excessive force and false arrest for criminal possession of a controlled substance. P alleges that he was driving his friend, Luis Zapata’s minivan when MOS pulled him over. P alleges that he provided MOS with a valid Puerto Rico’s driver’s license. P alleges he was strip searched at the precinct. Narcotics were in plain view.
The second trial I attended was a personal injury civil jury trial with Judge Carrier. This was a rather interesting case of Jennifer Wolfe VS D & W LLC. Within this case, Jennifer Wolfe attended a bachelorette party eight years ago with her now sister-in-law, who was the maid of honor. The story started out with everyone meeting at a house and the maid of honor was mad that the designated person to bring alcohol, forgot to bring the alcohol. The alcohol drank at this house was whatever was there, which was a few beers and a box of wine.
In the Ricci v. DeStefano case, Ricci a white male filed a disparate impact lawsuit under the Title VII. Ricci past the test that was given to be promoted within the fire department. Ricci was one of many (white) candidates to passed the test. The testing service hired to administer the test discarded all test because many minorities did not pass. Dothard case would fall under the disparate impact provision because unless the weight testing requirements are revised to be fair to all regardless of gender, more men will continue to outperform women.
The violation of statutory provisions by a landlord can qualify as a proximate cause for injuries to tenants in the case the surrounding environment was insecure and there was clear knowledge of intrusions into the given residential area. Ten Associates v. McCutchen Fla. App., 398 So.2d 860 (Fla.App. Ct. 1981). The landlord was legally obligated to positively respond to the plight of the tenants as their lease agreement put him responsible for any required repairs within the common area. The tenants, including Parker, had made numerous attempts to inform him of increased frequency of intrusion due to a broken deadbolt lock that he was mandated, according to the provisions of the statute, to promptly repair.
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.
Analysis of issues in the motion to suppress. Argument a) The police relied on the information provided by CRI-2 to form the ground for an affidavit seeking to obtain a search warrant. The information from CRI-2 was not credible and could not be independently be relied upon or verified.
Lawrence v. Texas: 539 U.S. 558 Facts of the case: In a private residence community, the Houston police had gotten a call about a weapons disturbance in the apartment of John Lawrence. John Lawrence was having drinks with two other people, who were Robert Eubanks and Tyron Garner, a few hours before the weapons disturbance was reported. Robert Eubanks, jealous of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner flirting with one another, decided to get a soda at a vending machine and called the police saying “a black male going crazy with a gun” was in the apartment (The New Yorker). The Houston police arrived at 11 pm to the unlocked apartment and entered to find John Lawrence and Tyron Garner having consensual intercourse.
United States v. Lopez was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The issue of the case was that It exceeded to the power of Congress which had no say over it because the case had nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic activity. The case United States v. Lopez involved Alfonzo Lopez Jr., Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Congress. Unites States v. Lopez was about a 12th grader named
It was Ricky Franklin Smith fourth offense, in which he was known as a habitual offender. He pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking and entering. During his hearing in the Court of Appeals, Smith suggested that he deserve a resentence due to the fact his charges was base upon his expunged juvenile criminal record. The Court of Appeals referred back to the case in People v. Price, 172 Mich App 396, 399-400; 431 NW2d 524 (1988) that suggested that in pursuant to MCR 5.913 when a juvenile record is expunged it cannot be used in a sentencing. Whereas, People v. Jones 173 Mich App 341, 343;433 NW2d 829 (1988) states that an expunged juvenile record can be included in an investigation report and in a sentencing(People v. Smith, 2017).
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”.
In 2013, the Supreme Court case Moncrieffe v. Holder refuses a Board of Immigration Appeals to removal from the United States of a lawful permanent resident based on a long term criminal conviction related to sole possession of small amounts of marijuana. The case finally made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which is considered a rather technical question of the interpretation of the U.S Immigration laws. Local police departments have long been accused of profiling Hispanic, African-Americans, and other minorities of race in law enforcement activities, including run of the mill traffic stop. Critics fear that immigration enforcement by state and local authorities will lead to increase of racism. Many Americans have shown concerns with the implementation of racist discrimination of the U.S immigration laws by state police agencies and local authorities.
Who are the proletariat? Workers who makes the good. Who are the bourgeoisie? Capitalist who owns means of production.
I A. B. Cantwell v Connecticut (1940) D. Jesse Cantwell and his son going door to door in their neighborhood talking badly to people about the religion of catholicism which lead to two people becoming angry. This leads to the Cantwells being arrested for breaking a local ordinance that requires a permit for solicitation and also for encouraging an infraction of the peace E. Were the Cantwells first amendment free speech rights violated when they were religious views were suppressed and did they encourage an infraction of the peace or not. F.The court ruled that you could restrict general solicitation but you could not put limitation based on religion and that if you did so it would be trying to silence someone's views.
Legal decisions The supreme decision regarding health care in prison is Estelle v. Gamble in 1976. J.W. Gamble was a state prisoner within the Texas Department of Corrections who injured his back when a cotton bale fell on him. Over the next three months, he complained of back and chest pains, was subject to administrative segregation for refusing to work because of continuing pains, he was twice refuse permission to see a doctor. So Gamble filed his complain in court, under section 1983, claim and unusual punishment in his medical care.
There is no one name for the case of Frank Abagnale. He was tried in France, Sweden, Italy, and then finally the United States. Therefore, it is reasonable to call the case The United States versus Frank Abagnale. He was accused of bank fraud, identity fraud, and professional con artist. A great criminal always starts young.
