A search warrant was issued by a State Superior Judge to search the Respondent’s residence whereby a large quantity of drugs was found. The Respondents filed a motion to suppress the evidence found. The District Court held an evidentiary hearing and granted partial suppression of the evidence. The District Court concluded that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued was found to be insufficient to establish probable cause. The court rejected the Government’s suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply where evidence is seized in reasonable good-faith reliance on a search warrant.
Prosecution Argument: Brinegar already had a reputation on transporting illegal alcohol, and when was pulled over he admitted to having some alcohol on him. Defense Argument: That the police had no probable cause on seizing the alcohol, or a warrant. Decision/ Rationale: While the police don’t always have to be correct in conducting a warrantless search, but the search must always be reasonable. Dissent: 6-3: Mr.Jackson dissented that, “the 4th amendment and are not mere second-class rights but belong in the catalog of indispensable
(US Courts, n.d.) The defendants Patrick Gibbs and O’Malleys Tavern claim that there is no actual knowledge of visible intoxication from the bartender. 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). The defendants also claim that the wreck between Mr. White and Mr. Hard is not the proximate cause of death but is a criminal act on behalf of Mr. Hard.
The People. This case was relatively straight forward. In July 1855, James Wynehamer was arrested and charged with selling intoxicating liquors, which was in violation of a current statute of the time. Wynehamer pleaded not guilty in the initial court session. His defense attorney argued that the statute in which he had been indicted was unconstitutional.
The Legalization of Medical Marijuana Victoria Riley COM/156 April 30th, 2012 Elizabeth Dunham The Legalization of Medical Marijuana "Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." (Abraham Lincoln) Marijuana should be a legalized medical drug because it is a natural plant, reduces pain and also has little to no negative side effects. Marijuana was mentioned in the United States in 1857. A doctor named John Bell wrote in the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal (Volume.
We have a case brought to us to decide whether the excessive bail ban of the 8th Amendment should be incorporated to the states. We have, in this case, a decision whether the excessive bail portion of the 8th amendment. The petitioner recently was arrested on suspicion of selling illegal narcotics. We are hearing this case in part because the petitioner has appealed arguing that the bail of $500,000 set is in opposition to the 8th amendment’s bar against excessive fines. Moreover, the petitioner appeals that the due process clause of the 14th amendment should be applied in this case arguing against his claim of excessive bail.
States are using the tenth amendment to get their point across there path is highlighting the fact that the use of Medical Marijuana was not classified, Marijuana was classified before we knew the benefits of use. The tenth amendment states ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ In the United States Constitution there is a supremacy clause, which says that in case of conflict federal law precedes state law. According to federal law, there is no such thing as Medical Marijuana. Marijuana is a dangerous drug that the United States Congress has classified as a Schedule One substance. A Schedule One Substance doesn't have any accepted medical use in the United States and a high potential for abuse.
Jury nullification was put into place by the founding fathers of this nation for a reason, to prevent governmental overreaching. Alexander Hamilton stated “it was the surest protection of the people’s liberties”. Juries rarely nullify irresponsibly, which is another exceptional reason for jury nullification to be a perfectly legitimate. Jury nullification was put in place as a sort of safety value it allows the jurors to hear the case and based on the facts use there own judgment to decide whether the laws are unjust. For example in the case of Sam Skinner, a AIDs patient was prosecuted for the illegal use of marijuana.
Crown can charge person with possession of marijuana, however to convict, they must prove that the accused knew it was marijuana. Courts do not accept this defense under all circumstances. In one case, person thought the drug was hashish instead of opium. Because the accused was still knowingly in possession of a controlled or illegal substance, this defense could not be used. Can also be used with sexual assault/ consent.
Criminal Law Paper Carolyn Waddell-Tillman 354 February 7, 2014 Professor William Heiman Criminal Law Paper Arrest Search and Investigation DNA Cheek Swab Maryland v. King, 569 U.S._ (June 3, 2003) The defendant was arrested in 2009 for menacing a group of people with a shotgun, the defendant was charged in state court with assault, where he was processed for detention custody at a central booking facility. Booking personnel used a cheek swab to take the DNA sample from him pursuant to the Maryland DNA Collection Act. His DNA was uploaded into the Maryland DNA database and matched a 2003 sample from an unsolved rape case. He was charged and convicted in the rape case (criminallawresources.com) What interested me about this