There was not any evidence that the suspect even knew he was being followed. Decision: King entered a conditional guilty plea with his right to appeal to get the evidence suppressed based on it being an illegal search. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction stating
Also claiming that Ferry was on his personal time when the accident happen because it happened after he left a pawnshop before is afternoon run. The court denied Netties appeal because Ferry was what the court considered employed by Netties because he was required to follow certain standards and Nettie's gave him the list of deliveries he had to do. Also the accident happened while Ferry was in route to the shop for his afternoon run. The fact that he was leaving the pawnshop was irrelevant because he was on his way to Netties to do his daily duties. Since Ferry was considered employed and in route to Netties the court denied the appeal concluding that Nettie's either controlled or had the right to control the manner in which Ferry Performed the duties for which he was employed.
Hebri sent a memo (dated July 24, 2002) to the agents directing them to obtain their own private security business licenses from the VDCJS and individual liability insurance so they could be classified as independent contractors. Issue: The issue is whether the bodyguards were considered to be employees or independent contractors for the purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Decision: Judgment for Schultz. Reasoning: The five plaintiff-agents were employees under the FLSA. Because defendant CIS was one of their joint employers along with the Prince, CIS is jointly and severally liable for the payment of any overtime required by the FLSA during the agents’ employment.
This was documented and monitored. We could not force Mr A to have a bath or shower but at the same time as careers we have a duty of care . After a week of reviewing this we had noticed that his flannels in his bath room were dry and was evidence that actually he wasn’t even having a strip wash, but he was having a wet shave every other day. We next called in the family and explained to them what was going on. The family said that they had also noticed that
After several hearings and test certifications a decision was reached that the test did not create an adverse impact and were accurate assessments of firefighter’s qualifications as related to the job. However, due to the fact that the employer tried to overthrow the test results in order to avoid adverse impact they were held liable for an attempt to avoid claims of adverse impact. New Haven reinstated the test results and 14 of the firefighters who passed the exam received promotions. Although adverse impact was not proven in this case, if IOS had not created/certified a test that decreased adverse impact to the protected class this could have resulted in adverse impact
The plaintiff upon receiving the note from the defendant did not send back any response but commenced work the next day by buying lumber necessary for completion of the defendants work. A second note was sent by the defendants countermanding the first note but was not forwarded before the plaintiff started work. The lower court decided that it was the plaintiff’s duty to go down to the defendants premises and commence work as a sign of acceptance and that the plaintiff was not obliged to expressly accept the offer by making either a written or verbal communication to the defendant and that his action to buy lumber for the work would suffice as an acceptance. The defendants were seeking an appeal on this ruling arguing that the plaintiff was obliged to communicate his acceptance before commencing work. They also argued that the note instructing the plaintiff to start work was a proposition rather than an agreement and that it should have been accepted by the plaintiff before either party could be bound by a contract.
The second mistake involved Ernst & Whinney, which was the auditor for ZZZZ Best after Greenspan was let go. During the interview between Greenspan and the congressional subcommittee, Greenspan reported that Ernst & Whinney never got in touch with him to talk about ZZZZ Best and to hear his side of the story as to the reason of ZZZZ Best letting him go. Had this conversation occurred, Greenspan might have been able to discuss his neglection to inspect the insurance restoration sites, which therefore could have given Ernst & Whinney a heads up to do so. Ernst & Whinney should have contacted Greenspan because it's a normal protocol to adhere to, and because it could have stopped the fraudulent acts of ZZZZ Best
Since Mapp and other significant decisions, innocent people have been subjected to fewer unconstitutional searches, not necessarily because the police fear the exclusion of evidence but because of the potential for civil liability, citizen complaints, and the like. The rules of law decided in Mapp v. Ohio relate to the relevant facts in the fact pattern based on the Fourth Amendment violation. Det. Quickdraw is a representative for the government, but he failed to uphold the law by not following the correct criminal procedure for search and seizure. In conclusion, if I were the judge ruling in this case, I could apply the exclusionary rule and any evidence that was obtained during the unlawful search would not be admissible.
As an example, a grocery store clerk who reports the father from the previous example to the police would be in violation of utilitarian ideology, but would find approval in virtue ethics. By reporting the father he is being an excellent employee to the grocery store and also improving society by reducing crime, passing the tests for both ethics and morality by virtue ethics standards. In the next example we will see how the same situation could unfold differently. Using the previous two examples, utilitarianism and virtue ethics provided conflicting viewpoints on similar issues. Deontological ethics bases itself upon performing a duty because it itself is inherently right without any
First, he broke the department policy by not video recording the interview which was essential to built a solid case if they had confess in which he claimed the two did. Secondly, he did not have either of the young offenders guardian(s) present which was a grand mistake. Not only did he confess to intentionally crossing the line by avoiding bringing in the parents and including them in the interview he probably is also guilty of coercing them in the confession. According, to the self-incrimination clause it clearly states that any statement made by defendant(s) while in police custody before trail will be inadmissible during prosecution unless the police first warn the defendants that they have the right to remain silent, the right to consult an attorney before being questioned, the right to have an attorney present during police questioning, the right to a court appointed attorney if they cannot afford one, the right to be informed that any statement they do make can