The Court stated reasonable suspicion to facts that can be articulated that are consistent with a violation of the law. In this fact pattern, Officer Smith noticed the taillight that appeared to be broken and covered by colored tape, this is a violation of proper vehicle equipment. Therefore, Officer Smith did have reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop of the vehicle (Supreme Court of Illinois, 2012). 2. Was the “pat-down” of the driver legal?
It is undisputed that KIA automobile complied with the safety standard for crashworthiness, including the airbags. The expert that represented the Ruiz family presented evidence in order to prove that there was a design defect in the airbag circuitry. It was stated that the airbag launch system was made with flimsy plastic connectors with insufficient locking features and metal surface area caused an open circuit that prevented the airbag to deploy. The court should grant to ensure burden is not lowered to allow liability in design-defect cases to rest on speculation about possible defects. The case Kia Motors Corp. v. Ruiz is a very interesting one, in which several legal concepts were applied and debated during litigation.
Accordingly, National was not required to offer underinsured motorist coverage to drivers under the self-insured statute, which requires only self-insurers to provide uninsured motorist coverage. Further, under its rental agreement, National was required to provide underinsured motorist coverage only if the vehicle was involved in an accident in a state that had mandatory underinsured motorist coverage that could not be rejected by any means. In Ohio, the coverage is rejectable. In accordance, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of National and against Metropolitan. Estate of Ralston v. Metro.Prop.&Cas.Ins146 Ohio App.3d 630 (2001) 2001-Ohio-3478 In our case, just as in Estate of Ralston, Sage Rent-A Car was self-insured under the provisions of R.C.4509.62, and R.C.4509.72 (a)(b), excluding them from liability.
An eyewitness is an individual who was present during an event and is called by a party in a lawsuit to testify as to what he or she observed. Eyewitnesses cannot be intoxicated or insane at the time of the controverted event occurred will be prevented from testifying, regardless of whether he or she was the only eyewitness to the occurrence. Recent DNA exoneration cases have corroborated the warnings of eyewitness identification researchers by showing that mistaken eyewitness misidentification was the largest single factor contributing to the conviction of these innocent people, especially those who are in death row. There have been many wrongful deaths because of misidentification testimonies and men/women have lost many years in prison due to eyewitnesses misidentifying them. How can the government assure us that they found a better way of sentencing the right people and not making mistakes?
Courts will not apply the rule to exclude illegally gathered evidence where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits. Thus, the rule is not triggered when courthouse errors lead police officers to mistakenly believe that they have a valid search warrant, because excluding the evidence would not deter police officers from violating the law in the future (Arizona v. Evans, 1996). In this case, no warrant was obtained and, given the improper consent to search, the motion to exclude the physical evidence filed by William Ellis’s attorney would in all likelihood be granted. In sum, the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of a “murder scene” exception to the warrant requirement on three separate occasions spread out over a twenty year period. In each instance, the Court has emphatically rejected the notion that such an exception exists.
DECISION: Affirmed in favor of appellee (Durham). Refund of purchase price affirmed. DISCUSSION: Appellants claim that there was evidence that they held good title or at leas voidable title and therefore had the right to sell. Court finds it unequivocal that a person who has goods of another cannot pass title whether such other knew or did not know that goods were stolen. It is undisputed that the automobile is stolen and title is void.
Frank Garcia Criminal Evidence In July sixth twenty twelve, Superior Judge overturned McLeod v. Condition, that was organized stating the previous trial Neil v. Biggers listening to is not needed when the person who saw it (witness) knows the person he or she is accusing. On mild of the U.S. Superior Court’s latest viewpoint in Perry v. New Hampshire,. Superior Judge organized that a pre-trial dedication of the witness’s stability must be created, even on the occasion that he person that saw it knows the person being accused. In Liverman’s case, the judge discovered that the failing to perform a full Neil v. Biggers listening to was safe mistake, and confirmed the indictment. Reasonable suspicion is a lawful conventional of evidence in Combined Declares law that is less than potential cause, the lawful conventional for busts and should get, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized doubt or 'hunch' "it must be depending on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with logical implications from those facts".
Simpson case is vital to the study of criminal justice and prosecution being that the restrictions that were obvious in the testimonies of the witnesses and evidence. As a consequence incorrect verdicts were made regarding the case for the reasons that there was evidence that could not be used like the blood samples and the detectives that gave testimonies that were ambiguous. Furthermore, before any case is taken to trial the state and the defense need to be absolutely certain that they have sufficient evidence in order to maintain their case, especially since a case can be dismissed based on the prima facie evidence provided. Studying this case has certainly changed my perspective because it was obvious that more was needed to be accomplished previous to closing remarks were
It turns out those red light cameras in Orlando violate state law. An Orange County Circuit Judge ruled Monday, the City of Orlando does not have the power to use the cameras to ticket drivers only the state can do that according to (Melissa DiPane 2010). So does this mean ticketed drivers will get their money back? Henry Stone with the Civil Rights Association says don’t hold your breath (Stone
Although section 5K and 5L offer immunity to the defendant against any liability when a person engages in a classified dangerous act. In the present case however, it was established that Mr. Mourlas was injured due to negligence on Mr. Fallas part and he was responsible for the necessary damages. Also, a person should not participate in dangerous recreational activity even if they have consumed very little alcohol just to prioritize safety for everyone involved. The defendant was negligent in taking loaded gun inside the car because it was not only a danger to himself but to the passenger and other shooters