Hardage was familiar with the anti-discrimination policy of CBS, still he did not involve the company in the matter. While making decision that CBS could avoid liability, the court relied on the fact that Hardage was unsuccessful in establishing a factual disagreement with regard to affirmative defense
Investigation: A person can have reasonable privacy even in a public place. In this case, the person utilizing the phone booth would expect reasonable privacy because they would not think that their conversation would be recorded regardless of the conversations that took place. Under the Fourth Amendment, the taping of the phone conversations constitutes the search even though the search was achieved without a warrant. Conclusion: The evidence such as the tapes were inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the conviction was overturned.
“For example, it makes little sense to require an officer to obtain a search warrant to seize contraband that is in plain view. Under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement, the appropriateness of every warrantless search is decided on a case-by-case basis, weighing the defendant's privacy interests against the reasonable needs of law enforcement under the circumstances” (G K. Hill, 2005). Another exception to warrant requirements as it pertains to the above article is that the video released shows there was a lack of physical harm as seen on George Zimmerman. This was important to the prosecution because Zimmerman claimed Trayvon Martin attacked him and his death was a result of self defense. In conclusion, authority’s base warrants on probable cause which are only necessary in a small percentage of cases.
They processed it and later found out there was traces of his wife’s nightgown, skin, and blood all from the deceased victim. The evidence was then admitted at trial. Murphy then proceeded to appeal his conviction stating that they conducted an unlawful search and seizure which goes against his 4th and 14th amendment rights. Issue: Whether the taking of the substance underneath the defendants fingernail without his permission was unlawful. Decision of the Court: His charge was held and he was charged for the murder of his wife.
It states that no object may be used in court as evidence if obtained illegally or without a proper search warrant. Legal questions to be addressed by the court: Whether the exclusionary rule is appropriate for violation of the knock-and-announce requirement? The decision of the court: With a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that the exclusionary rule is not appropriate for violations of the knock and announce rule. The Court noted that a knock-notice violation is rarely the “but-for” cause of obtaining inculpatory evidence. Consequently, when the police violate knock-notice rules by not announcing their presence or waiting sufficient time before forcing their way in),
Leah Earp 1. Ronderos should win the lawsuit because the property was rightfully Schock’s already and Ronderos is not a merchant therefore the risk of loss is Schock’s. 6. The dealer cannot reclaim the automobile because the buy was a good faith purchaser and the dealer can only make a lawsuit against B. 10.
While attempting to follow criminal procedure during the investigation of a suspected drug dealer, Sally Martin, Detective Quickdraw finds himself being questioned about the legality of the search and seizure of Martin’s home. Detective Quickdraw believed that all of the facts regarding Martin dealing cocaine were there and obvious. While working undercover and besides hearing through the streets that Martin’s home was known as the drug house, Quickdraw observed the in-and-out traffic at the residence, which further led him to believe that the allegations were true. Another relevant fact was when informant Sneaky Pete returned to Quickdraw’s unmarked police car with a small amount of cocaine, which was purchased from a man inside of Martin’s home. In addition, Sneaky Pete was inside of Martin’s residence long enough to detect items that looked suspicious, such as the digital scales and the square object wrapped in a garbage bag.
CI was given $50.00 of official PD money to conduct a controlled purchase of $50.00 worth of Crack Cocaine from "Lil Sam", , at a predetermined location. "Lil Sam" was observed making an exchange with the CI of money for a small clear plastic baggie. The CI handed Detective a small plastic baggie containing an off white rock like substance that was field tested positive as cocaine. The CI was again searched with negative results. The Crack cocaine was sent to the state crime lab for an official drug analysis.
• Can the taxpayer expect to make a profit in the future from the appreciation of assets used in the activity? In deciding Donald and Denise Hastings v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Tax Court ruled that “…occasional and weekend activity… does not indicate a profit objective.” and, therefore is not provided with trade or business status. Conclusion Based upon the existing precedents, Dr Green’s gambling activities would not be considered a trade or business. This opinion is supported by the fact Dr. Green is actively employed as a physician and does not “…depend on income from the [gambling] activity” as required by FS-2007-18. And as ruled in Donald and Denise Hastings v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, since the gambling activities are limited to the weekends, they are excluded from consideration as a business activity.
Held: 1. The Petition Clause does not provide absolute immunity to defendants charged with expressing libelous and damaging falsehoods in petitions to Government officials. Although the value in the right of petition as an important aspect of self-government is beyond question, it does not follow that the Framers of the First Amendment believed that the Petition Clause provided absolute immunity from damages for libel. In 1845 this Court, after reviewing the common law, held in White v. Nicholls, 3 How. 266, that a petition to a Government official was actionable if prompted by "express malice," which was defined as "falsehood and the absence of probable cause," and nothing has been presented to suggest that that holding should be altered.