The police learned of the offense against Willie Shard only upon arriving at the station. Willie Shard was called to come down to the police station, and upon walking into the building, immediately Willie Shard identified the two men, without counsel present, and before any formal charges had been made. History The petitioner and his companion did not have counsel present and believed they were not formally charged. They believed it was unfair that they never got a line up. A motion to suppress the identification was denied at trial, and the petitioner and his companion were convicted for the robbery.
Dollree was arrested for the possession of lewd and lascivious books under the Ohio Revised Code 2905.34-.35 (The Cleveland Memory Project). However, they could not convict her due to her fourth amendment right which states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” (Bill of Rights Transcript Text). This case was important in defining the use of the “exclusionary rule”. When the Cleveland Police Department received an anonymous phone tip of the whereabouts of Virgil Ogletree, a suspect in the bombing, they were headed straight to the Mapp resident. Officers from the Cleveland Bureau of Special Investigation Sergeant Carl I. Deleau, Officer Thomas J. Dever, and Officer Micheal J. Haney surrounded Dollree’s home and requested entry.
The defendant later on denied that any liquor was visible. The defendant was arrested, and the officer seized the alcohol in the car as well as the alcohol he found in the trunk after the arrest. The defendant challenged the constitutionality of his arrest on the grounds that the officer did not have probable cause, and thus the seizure of the alcohol was not agreeable to a valid stop. Legal Issue: Whether or not the requirements of the information on which an officer may act, such as a warrantless search has probable cause? Prosecution Argument: Brinegar already had a reputation on transporting illegal alcohol, and when was pulled over he admitted to having some alcohol on him.
Citation: Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) Parties: Luis E. Melendez: Petitioner Facts: Petitioner was tried in state court on charges for distributing cocaine and trafficked in cocaine, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws and the prosecution entered into evidence certificates signed by state laboratory analysts, which stated that evidence seized from the petitioner was cocaine. The state called no witness to allow cross examination on the veracity of the report, but relied instead on a state law allowing affidavits of lab analysis to be admitted. Petitioner objected to admission of the certificates, claiming that their admission violated his right under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to confront the analysts who signed the certificates, but the trial court overruled the objection and admitted the certificates under Mass. Gen. Laws.
Littlejohn was later convicted of voluntary manslaughter while armed. Farooq claim that the security firm failed to properly supervise the security staff hired by John Doe. She claimed that because the hotel assigned an employee to interact with John Doe and the security team, the hotel must have had control over the security personnel and should be held liable for their negligent supervision. She said the security staff was negligent because it did not find the knife that Littlejohn brought to the party, even after searching attendees before they entered the room. The U.S District Court, District of Columbia said that even if Farooq’s claims that the hotel had control of the security were found to
The union felt this was unlawful use of management’s power and filed a grievance with the arbitrator. The grievance stated that under Article VII they were allowed to maintain use of the refrigerator in the new building because it was changing their working conditions without negotiating the matter with the union. The employees used the fridge to keep their lunches and snacks cold thus eliminating their need to leave the facility. By not having the fridge they were forced to incur additional expenses for running through a drive-thru on their 30 minute lunch break. Lastly, the union argued that it was never viewed as a safety concern in the old building and shouldn’t be viewed as such in the new building.
Probable Cause Article Summary In order to issue to a search warrant, a judge must sign the order and authorize and obtain the specifics along with the location. The search warrant is only good for the specified location, so if the warrant specifies the garage at a certain address, authorities cannot search the inside of the home as well. In an article published online regarding the Trayvon Martin case, Reverend Al Sharpton stated he was enforcing the arrest of George Zimmerman regarding the released videos that gave probable cause to arrest him “for obstruction of justice and for filing a false police report if in fact he told police he sustained a broken nose and other injuries” (EurPublisher, 2012). Warrant requirement exceptions can be anything from roadside sobriety checkpoints, which have been court approved but must be done in a fair and organized manner. “For example, it makes little sense to require an officer to obtain a search warrant to seize contraband that is in plain view.
The arrest is the seizing and detaining of a person by lawful authority (McGrow-Hill, 2010, p.22). He has Bill and Stan exit the car through the driver’s side. Because the Sherriff thought they had committed a felony he had every right to have his weapon drawn. A felony is” a serious offense punishable by death, a fine, of confinement in a state or federal prison for more than a year” (Wikipedia.org). During the initial arrest they were not informed about what crime they had been arrested for, which they should have been.
The techniques that Deck Shifflet teaches Rudy Baylor in signing-up new clients, in the book "Rainmaker", by John Grisham, constitute clear violations of California's Rules of Professional Conduct. I will illustrate which actions sponsored at Deck's request and committed by Rudy, the young law school graduate, violate the California State Bar Professional Conduct Rules listed below. Background: Ambulance chasing, also known as barratry, refers to a lawyer using an event as a way to find clients. The term ambulance chasing comes from the stereotype of lawyers that follow ambulances to the emergency room to find clients. Ambulance chasing is prohibited in the US.
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.