October 2, 2012 Case Brief Cupp v Murphy 412 U.S. 291 (1973) Facts: Daniel Murphy was convicted of murdering his wife in the second degree. After he found out of the murder he called the police and voluntarily submitted himself to questioning. In the middle of his questioning the police noticed a dark spot on his finger and they asked if they could get a sample and he refused. The police did not respect his wishes and they took the sample anyways of what was under his fingernail. They processed it and later found out there was traces of his wife’s nightgown, skin, and blood all from the deceased victim.
No firewall can be a disaster for Huffman Trucking because it allows hackers to get in and have access to organization’s valuable information. Firewall must be implemented at this branch also from protection from hackers. A firewall blocks unauthorized access and allow authorized users. Firewalls can be implemented in hardware or software to ensure unauthorized Internet users are blocked from accessing Huffman Trucking’s private network (Wikipedia, 2009). Ohio Office/Plant.
DLK vs. the United States In order to override privacy concerns without a warrant, law enforcement must be in danger of losing evidence. In the case of DLK vs. the United States, federal agents suspected DLK of growing marijuana plants in his home. Since they had no physical evidence, officers used a thermal scanner to detect any unusual heat patters coming from the home. After scanning and finding a few of those patterns, a judge issued a warrant that resulted in the finding of over 100 marijuana plants. In this case, I believe the government took it too far because there was no warrant allowing officers to scan DLK’s home, there was no danger of losing evidence, and DLK’s fourth amendment rights were violated.
Hardage was familiar with the anti-discrimination policy of CBS, still he did not involve the company in the matter. While making decision that CBS could avoid liability, the court relied on the fact that Hardage was unsuccessful in establishing a factual disagreement with regard to affirmative defense
Citation: Dillion Companies, INC. v. Melia, 18 Kan.App. 2d 5,846 P.2d 257 (1993) Parties: DILLION COMPANIES, INC., Appellant, Martin MELIA, Appellee Facts: Randy Atkin, head of security for the Dillion’s store in this case, observed Melia leave the store without paying for a pouch of tobacco. Melia had placed the tobacco in his shirt pocket prior to leaving the store. Atkin stopped Melia in the store’s parking lot, at which time Melia stated he had forgotten to pay for the tobacco. Believing he would be allowed to pay for the tobacco Melia agreed to reenter the store with Atkin.
28/10/2013 Grizzle Incident On Friday, 25th October 2013, A complaint was received by Mr Grizzle, which he claims that he was illegally searched and assaulted by security personal on Thursday 17th October. Mr Grizzle claims that he was pushed against a wall by Security Guard I.A.M. Keen and threatened that if he didn’t allow him (I.A.M. Keen) to search his bag, that he (Mr Grizzle) would get the sack. Standard Operating Procedures state that searches are to be carried out at random on the site, but no force is to be used to effect searches.
The issues in this case did Mrs. Baker provide proof of Natalie’s appearance having a negative effect on the business causing sales and profits to go down? If Natalie’s refusal to remove the tattoo, after instructed to do so by Mrs. Baker constitute misconduct as defined by N.M. STAT. Ann § 51-1-7. Were Natalie’s unemployment benefits unrightfully terminated as a result of Mrs. Bakers claims of employee misconduct? Rule The State of New Mexico didn’t have a definition for misconduct so they
All 7 individuals, including the bank employees, and the 3 police officers claimed the award. Procedural History: The court established that only one police officer (the defendant) is entitled to the award. Points of View: The Bank employees believe that the information they provided to the police officers lead to the arrest of the bank robbers and that they were entitle to the award. The Police officers who arrested the bank robbers also believed that they were entitle to the award as well. In a publics’ eye, bank employees are highly ethical people who should protect the money, people, and businesses as well as the deposits in the bank.
I had never heard of this tragic Romona Moore case until we had a chance in the class to watch the horrific crime, which was perpetrated against this young woman, in the. It is a terrible distress what happened to this smart and hard working young woman, by two despicable pieces of garbage, but what is even more of a tragedy, is the way, the New York City police department dismissed her family and friends when they reported her missing. All of civilians have a right to the same resources as anyone else who need a help from police or who reports a missing person, yet, victim’s family were ignored. In addition, there are another ignorance which was deprived of humanity. The man who knew about Romona Moore's kidnapping and torture did nothing to aide or assist her even he didn’t report to police.
The solution was terminating the employee and providing briefing staff members on HIPAA laws and regulations. The fact is the nurse disclosed patient information to her husband for their personal use. The behavior of the nurse is not tolerated in any medical facility. The nurse actions led to consequences that could destroy her career. The nurse in the article made an unethical decision to bring home the patient private information and disclose it with her husband.