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.
A search warrant was issued by a State Superior Judge to search the Respondent’s residence whereby a large quantity of drugs was found. The Respondents filed a motion to suppress the evidence found. The District Court held an evidentiary hearing and granted partial suppression of the evidence. The District Court concluded that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued was found to be insufficient to establish probable cause. The court rejected the Government’s suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply where evidence is seized in reasonable good-faith reliance on a search warrant.
Cheet Sheet: Jenkins v. Florida AppellantJenkins 1974 Federal Privacy Act -Restricts access to medical information and records Jaffee v Redmond 518 US 1 - Supreme Court 1996 Background: Mary Lu Redmond, a former police officer, received extensive counseling from a licensed clinical social worker after she shot and killed Ricky Allen. Carrie Jaffee, special administrator for Allen, filed suit in federal District Court alleging that Redmond had violated Allen's constitutional rights by using excessive force in the encounter. During the trial, Jaffee sought access to the notes from Redmond's counseling. Redmond's counsel resisted asserting the conversations were protected against involuntary disclosure by a psychotherapist-patient privilege. The District Court judge rejected the argument, but the notes were not released.
After taken to trial, the prosecutor's case “consisted solely of his confession” to obtain a conviction. The Maricopa County Superior Court convicted Miranda of both rape and kidnapping and was then sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that “the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession” as well as the absence of an attorney during the interrogation and should have been excluded from trial. The police officers involved admitted that they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights. They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights.
Alfonzo once again claimed that Commerce Clause which is basically where Congress is granted separate power, which Alfonzo thought was a direct violation of the Constitution Of The Unites States. The Fifth Circuit overturned the original conviction by stating the charges and the laws are past the powers of the Congress and in response to that the U.S. government then appealed to the Supreme court. The reason they did this was so the Commerce Laws could stay in effect. The Governments argument was the possession of a firearm on or within a school facility would likely be to commit a act of violence which would effect the school and how it is run and also the well being of the population, and because of all this the government believe that the commerce clause should be upheld. In
in Findlaw.com) and “sitting without a jury” a California Superior Court found him to be “in violation of the California Health and Safety Code, 1947, 11,500” (Findlaw). This conviction depended on the evidence of the “two capsules” that were allowed to be admitted over the objection of Rochin. Believing that his rights had been violated, Rochin appealed to the District Court of Appeal and was denied. Although there were revelations of various “violations of constitutional rights” (qtd. in Findlaw.com) during the obtainment of evidence, one of the three judges said he “felt bound by the decisions of his Supreme Court” (Findlaw) to uphold the conviction.
Decided June 21, 1973.This is one of a group of “obscenity-pornography” cases being reviewed by the Court in a re-examination of standards enunciated in earlier cases involving what Mr. Justice Harlan called “the intractable obscenity problem”. The first amendment which seems to be straight forward gave meaning to people in different ways it seems people all interpret the meaning differently especially when it comes to freedom of speech, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or the press: or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The freedom of speech has been found to have certain limits in carefully constrained circumstances, for instance the corporation many not make untruthful claims about their products, but its limits when applied to individual expression are much harder to define. The publication and distribution of sexually explicit materials has also been limited by Court actions. This particular case is pertaining to a mass mailing of advertisement of the sale of an illustrated books called adult material.
My intention is not to absolve Leslie Van Houten of her crime, there is sizeable proof that she participated in the LaBianca murders. My objective is to show that due to her substantial use of LSD, PCP, and other Hallucinogenic drugs, which are known to cause powerful experiences that, take you beyond normal perception and then back again. These drugs left her both vulnerable and susceptible to Charles Manson’s (“Manson”) manipulation, to the point where she did not act of her own but was under the complete control of Mason and during this diminished state is when the murders occurred. Leslie was evaluated by Court appointed Psychiatrist’s to determine her mental state. Prior to the Court appointed evaluation it was proven to be a difficult task for her defense attorney’s to have her evaluated.
Jury nullification was put into place by the founding fathers of this nation for a reason, to prevent governmental overreaching. Alexander Hamilton stated “it was the surest protection of the people’s liberties”. Juries rarely nullify irresponsibly, which is another exceptional reason for jury nullification to be a perfectly legitimate. Jury nullification was put in place as a sort of safety value it allows the jurors to hear the case and based on the facts use there own judgment to decide whether the laws are unjust. For example in the case of Sam Skinner, a AIDs patient was prosecuted for the illegal use of marijuana.
Question 2 1 out of 1 points Correct James is in court facing drug-related charges and his therapist was subpoenaed to testify in court regarding any discriminating evidence concerning the case. His therapist came to court but refused to answer questions regarding the case or produce James’s records. The therapist used the following legal concept to protect himself from forced disclosure: Question 3 1 out of 1 points Correct __________ , as a matter of law, refers to the constitutional right of an individual to decide the time, place, manner, and extent of sharing oneself with others. Question 4 1 out of 1 points Correct It is illegal and unethical for a therapist to disclose confidential information when: Question 5 1 out of 1 points Correct Ethical guidelines regarding confidentiality require that counselors do not: Question 6 1 out of 1 points