The defendant later on denied that any liquor was visible. The defendant was arrested, and the officer seized the alcohol in the car as well as the alcohol he found in the trunk after the arrest. The defendant challenged the constitutionality of his arrest on the grounds that the officer did not have probable cause, and thus the seizure of the alcohol was not agreeable to a valid stop. Legal Issue: Whether or not the requirements of the information on which an officer may act, such as a warrantless search has probable cause? Prosecution Argument: Brinegar already had a reputation on transporting illegal alcohol, and when was pulled over he admitted to having some alcohol on him.
MAPP VS OHIO Issues:The search of Mapp's home was not legal and the evidence admissible under State law and criminal procedure? Why was the case heard:This case clearly overruled Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949). The federal licenced rule now applies to the States through application of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. All illegally obtained evidence under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution must now be excluded. Facts: Three Cleveland police officers arrived at the petitioner’s house looking for a bombing suspect hiding out in her house.
The trial judge granted the motion quashed the information which means to nullify, void, or delcare invalid. Both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed. Reading further you learn that the reason the motion was granted was because the police detained Summers OUTSIDE of his home while searching the premises. Fourth Amedment right states that the person being detained has the right to be present while the search is being done for reasons such as to make sure that evidence isn't being planted and the scene isn't being staged. He was escorted off the premises while the search was done, and he as well was searched off the premises.
They asked the court to declare Chicago law banning handguns unconstitutional. Chicago’s law does not expressly prohibit handgun ownership, but Justice Alito argued that it effectively does so. The law requires all owners of firearms to apply for a permit. Most handguns are excluded from the list of approvable firearms, therefore making it nearly impossible for any resident to own a handgun. Both the petitioners were ruled against by the United States District Court Judge and the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Whites former fiancée. This would be the standard required in order for the plaintiff to recover under Indiana Law (Ind. Code Ann. 7.1-5-10-15.5). Furthermore, they stated that the act of crashing into the White’s car was not the “proximate cause” of the injuries to the plaintiff and the death of her husband but rather the result of a criminal act by Mr. Hard.
Alfonzo then appealed arrest and said this law is unconstitutional Lopez believed that the laws went past the power of the United States Congress. His first defense failed and the court ruled and said that Congress had the right and authority to regulate school activities throughout the United States. Alfonzo was convicted for carrying a weapon to school. Then Alfonzo appealed the initial decision and then he brought the case to the Fifth Circuit of Appeals which is a court composed of seventeen active judges John Minor Wisdom United States Court of Appeal which is located in New Orleans, Louisiana. Alfonzo once again claimed that Commerce Clause which is basically where Congress is granted separate power, which Alfonzo thought was a direct violation of the Constitution Of The Unites States.
Tasers: Law Enforcement Control Device or Dangerous Weapon? September 14, 2007 a man was tasered in Utah for not signing a traffic ticket. The man was named Jared Massey and he was pulled over for speeding by Utah State Trooper John Gardner. Massey refused to sign his speeding ticket and was asked to get out of the car. He was then told to turn around and put his hands behind his head.
The Weeks case pertained to an appeal by a defendant who was convicted of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. The conviction was based on evidence gathered after law enforcement officers searched the defendant’s home without a warrant and seized the evidence illegally. The defendant’s conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court and this created what we now know as the exclusionary rule. It was in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), that the Supreme Court made the rule germane to the states. Justice Day said, "The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain convictions by means of unlawful searches and enforced confessions .
Here’s where the issue comes into play. Mr. King admitted his guilt and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Officials of the corrections department collected Mr. King’s DNA. This is a state law, but unfortunately for Mr. King his DNA came back linked to a crime of rape in 2003. Here are the particulars of the problems of this case; one the DNA collected was not needed for the assault case again in which Mr. King pleaded guilty.
Carlos was told that he fit the description of the person who robbed the gas station attendant. Because the description of the robber was Mexican and that he was wearing a black flannel-plaid shirt and jeans as Carlos was wearing. We told the police officer that we don’t have a car and that we are only 13 years of age. They took Carlos away in the police car and left me to walk back to his house alone. I have always been a good law abiding citizen.