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. The defendants believe there are no disputes of the material facts in the case and ask that the Court grant their motion The Appellee’s lawyers in this case, believe that Mrs. White was injured and her husband, Bruno White was killed when the vehicle driven by her ex-fiancée, Edward Hard, crashed into their vehicle. The State of Indiana requires that a plaintiff meet the following elements in order to recover damages: the defendant must have actual knowledge that the person to whom the alcoholic beverage was furnished was visibly intoxicated at the time the alcoholic beverage was furnished, and the intoxication of the person to whom the alcoholic
They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights. The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld his conviction. Miranda then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed his case in 1966 (Miranda v. Arizona). Decision The Warren Court argued February 28 – March 2, 1966 Did not decide until June 13, 1966 There were 5 votes for Miranda and 4 votes against Chief Justice Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because “the police had failed to first inform
| Fictitious Lawyers Group | Memo To: Ms. Singh From: CC: Intro to Law Unit 1 IP Re: felony vs. misdemeanor Abstract The author of this memo focuses on the arrest of Ms. Singh, for breach of peace an incident that occurred during an altercation at a bar with another patron. Ms. Singh, does not understand the law and has concerns about the possibility of prison and capital punishment i.e., the death penalty. In this response the author attempts to elaborate the difference between a felony and misdemeanor, Further, she expounds some of the possible consequences that Ms. Singh faces if she is convicted of this crime. Dear Ms. Singh, The purpose
The defendant was charged with failing to pay traffic fines before the due date. Hobbs was initially fined with two counts of traffic related offences. The first was for exceeding the speed limit, with a recorded speed of 20-30 km/h over the speed limit and the second was for failing to obey traffic light signals at an intersection. The prosecutor stated that, according to s.92 ss. (1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Qld), the duty of persons in charge of dangerous things; if a person is in charge of a dangerous thing, the person must use reasonable care and take reasonable precautions in its use or management to avoid danger to anyone else’s life, health or safety.
Stuart Strom September 20, 2011 Essay Marijuana Possession and its Negative Consequences On August 7, 2011 I was charged with a speeding ticket and a misdemeanor possession of less than 35 grams of marijuana. I was pulled over for speeding, and the officer searched my vehicle after signs of marijuana usage. Approximately 3.5 grams of marijuana were found and I was taken to the police station and given a ticket, which has surprisingly impacted my life since. Prior to this incident, I was under the impression that being charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana was not a big deal; just a fine and I would be on my way. Unfortunately, that was not the case.
However, the vehicle appeared to have committed a traffic violation based off of Smith’s perception. In the case of Whren v. United States, this case can back up Smiths’ reason to pull the driver over based off of probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred. Once Officer Smith began to approach the automobile, she then had reasonable suspicion of the vehicle based off of its description of an earlier crime. This gives law enforcement a reason to conduct a pat down. The pat down of the driver was very much legal based off of reasonable suspicion of the vehicle’s description.
Search Warrant Velasco Professor Hart Devry University 12/12/2012 SEARCH WARRANT (PHONE RECORDS) I am a sworn police officer employeed by the County of Kern Sheriff Department the Central Division. I’m the applicant for this search warrant of phone records. I do heraby state that there is a reasibable cause that there are criminal violations occuring at Do Drop In Bar located at 1631 Lager, Road El Fuego in County of Kern 93301. On Decemeber 11 of 2012, as I Officer Velasco #101 was assign for an undercover assignment of criminal violations metion in the address above. While undercover I heard and sae a regualar By the name of Billy Biglunch speaking to the owner of the bar Steve Sober that a inside source advise hime that the
Amazingly, Ramos, who had already been charged twice with being drunk in public and once with a DUI, walked away from the accident with nothing but a swollen cheek. This horrific tragedy is described in a report on the WAVY TV 10 local news channel in Virginia found on the website http://www.wavy.com/global/story (1). A question arises, and that is to why the illegal immigrant was not deported after his first conviction. This is because Virginia law protects people from having immigration checks run through if the offender is only charged with a misdemeanor (Frank 2). In a heated debate on the “O’Reilly Factor,” between talk show host Bill O’Reilly and journalist Geraldo Rivera, the issue was being pulled in a game of Tug-O-War.
My Statement of Facts I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22349(a). This is the facts in my case #S154485, on a citation given to my by Deputy Rivas Badge ID#4615 with the Santa Barbara Country Sheriffs Department on October 25, 2013 at approximately 10:35 P.M. While driving southbound on 101??? freeway, just between Pattersen Avenue and the 154 Offramp?
Assignment Cover Page ENGLISH COMPOSITION II 2012-12-ENC-102-OL013 Assignment: Module 6 Unit 10 Assignment Due Date: 02-23-2013 Student: Mentor: Ms. Catherine Peck TESC Mentor 101 W. State St Trenton, NJ, 08608 catherine.peck@gmail.com A Compulsory Review of Quixotic Gun Control Prepared by NA Distributed February 23, 2012 Prepared for Ms. Catherine Peck TESC English Comp Mentor Abstract Few events in life demand your immediate attention like gun violence. These events are always shocking and bring about deep emotions that can take us on quixotic crusades, resulting in ineffective and restrictive regulations. Universal evidence and correlations have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more violence and fewer guns, therefore, mean less violence (Godwin 281). While the hearts and souls of the regulatory author are well placed, all too often the resulting debate is rooted in erroneous statistics and unrepresentative comparisons. To illustrate Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced Assault Weapons Ban legislation that would ban any weapon with a grip on the premise they are too easy to get and used too often for bad (Feinstein).