“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.
The order was defied when you did not leave after Dean Sykes’ specific instructions. In summary, based on the facts discussed above, I believe that a court would almost certainly conclude that there is sufficient evidence to find that a lawful order not to remain existed and that there was defiance of such order, making out a Criminal Trespass in the third degree. From here on, I would recommend avoiding any social networking posts that discuss this matter. In this way, there will be nothing relevant posted that could have a negative effect on your case. Our office will be in touch with you
In addition, once a consent search has started, the person whose property is being searched may, at any time, revoke his or her consent. Consent may be revoked by comments or actions. Withdrawal of consent must be clearly stated, expressing dislike or impatience is not enough to revoke
Wal-Mart believed that the Byrd’s failed to present enough valid evidence to the jury that Mrs. Byrd’s injuries were in deed from Wal-Mart’s negligence. According to the case summary of Byrd vs. Wal-Mart Inc it states that “In order to rely on res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff must prove three elements: (1) an injury of the type that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence; (2) the injury was caused by an instrumentality in the defendant's exclusive control; and (3) the injury was not caused by an act or omission of the
Any arrests outside of the state would not be included as the date of failure. An additional limitation of the study is that it is possible that the relationship between drug treatment and reduced recidivism is due to unmeasured and unknown variables predicting both. The final limitation is that the research does not differentiate between in-program recidivism and post-program recidivism. Be able to differentiate between the two is necessary because of the probability that subjects behave differently when being directly supervised by the court. Despite the limitations found in the BCDTC, the findings of the research proved that subjects who participated in the DTC were less likely to be rearrested than the control group.
1.3 When considering if a restrictive practice is acceptable it must be clear about the intention or purpose of the practice. The use of a restrictive practice for the people we support can only be justified on the grounds of a health or safety need of the person where a multi-disciplinary assessment has agreed that no alternative practice exists that is less restrictive of the person. A behavioural support plan should be created. Physical intervention will only involve the least restrictive technique, applied with the minimum force, for the shortest duration to manage the situation safely. If an emergency situation should arise, it is permissible for staff to use minimum force to prevent serious injury to self or others provided this is for the least amount of time to bring the situation under control.
Dontae caine Lgs 3:30-4:45 4/6/2013 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISSON GROUNDS THAT THE STOLEN VALOR ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL To: Law partner to the current state of the law From: Dontae Reshard Caine Re: Stolen Valor Act as Unconstitutional Issue: Does the First Amendment protects false statements of fact – made without any apparent intent to defraud or gain anything? If so, what level of protection do they deserve. Six Justices agreed that some protection was warranted, but disagreed as to the amount, and three Justices believe that the First Amendment does not protect such lies at all. Background: The defendant has been charged by criminal complaint with one count of violation of 18U.S.C. § 704, popularly known as the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.
While the physician did not believe that, at the time of treatment, the patient was competent to make this decision, the patient had an advanced directive that clearly stated that he did not wish to be intubated. Provision 2.1 of the ANA Code of Ethics also directs that the nurses primary concern is always for the patient and the best interest of the patient while Provisions 3.1 and 3.2 discuss the nurses responsibility for providing the patient with privacy and confidentiality, all of these provisions were ignored, to a degree, during the course of this scenario. While the scenario describes Mr. E as having a mild developmental disability we do not know his actual level of competence at the time the advanced directive and the medical power of attorney was signed. Just because he has a developmental disability does not mean that the disability was severe enough that the patient was unable to comprehend the choices he made when instituting these
Application 4: The damages that Resendez experiences are not physical. However, she is probably injured from an emotional and psychological perspective such as anxiety and degradation resulting from the defendant’s detention. Conclusion: Normally the court is unlikely to find Wal-Mart liable for the tort of false imprisonment because the third element does not apply; a reasonable justification was present against Resendez. The defendant was able to provide a valid reason for detaining the plaintiff by considering the peanuts as stolen property. Despite the fact that a justification was identifiable, Salinas has defense options available if the rule was proved otherwise.
An example is when the Miranda Doctrine is not observed upon arresting, the right of self-incrimination may be invoked so as for the evidences against the defense be inadmissible. In order for the Miranda Doctrine to be validly executed, such must be stated in the presence of the counsel for the defense. Such doctrine may be waived, but must be made with utmost knowledge of its consequences (Israel et al, 1993). Although both Fifth and Sixth Amendments embody significant rights for the citizens, it still has differences, one of which is that pertaining to the inquiries pertaining to the case is not allowed in the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth amendment protects the accused upon the case against him.