1ST PAGE OF PAGE DOCUMENT REF: PROSECUTING ATTORNEY’S FORM AFFIDAVIT FORM SUPPLIED BY ___________________________________________________________________ DATE:____________________________________________________ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF , ARKANSAS AFFIDAVIT FOR WARRANT OF ARREST FOR THE FOLLOWING PERSON: D FELONY POTENTIAL DEFENDANT’S NAME DOB/ RACE/ SEX MISDEMEANOR , ADDRESS PURSUANT TO RULE 7.1 OF THE ARKANSAS RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, THE UNDERSIGNED AFFIANT(S) BEING DULY SWORN, DEPOSES AND SAYS THAT SHE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PERSON HAS COMMITTED THE OFFENSE OF VIOLATING ARKANSAS CODE ANN.5-64-419, POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
The marijuana is a tangible piece of evidence. If he or she knowingly and intentionally possess a controlled substance then possession charges can be brought forward. One of the requirements is that it has to be relevant to the case and it also has to be reliable and not prejudiced. Officer Smith also must be able to prove the source of the evidence has to be reliable. In the case of Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) it was held that an officer can search any person and all area that the person of persons have under their control of reach.
Include the following: a. The M’Naghten rule b. The irresistible impulse exemption c. The Durham test d. The ALI (American Law Institute) standard or Brawner rule 3. Discuss the similarities and differences between the psychological conception of mental illness and the legal concept of insanity. 4.
University of Phoenix Material Anti-Drug Legislation Matrix Complete the matrix by selecting three states to add below Federal. Then, answer each question listed in the first row for each corresponding law. | |Is |What are the|What are the|What are the |What is the blood alcohol |Is there extreme DWI or DUI? If so, | | |marijuana |penalties |penalties |penalties for |level for a driving while |what is the punishment? | | |illegal?
The officers then processed the capsules and found them to be morphine. Upon their findings the officers submitted the capsules as evidence in Rochin's case, where he was found guilty of violating Claifornia's Health and Safety Code of having an unlawful posession of morphine. Now the issue arises can law enforcement forcibly extract evidence from one's body? Rochin was found guilty, and later appealed his case stating that his rights were protected under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitutuion. He argued that forced stomach pumping was self incrimination and that the evidence should have been inadmissable in
GED 260 Criminology Unit Exam 3 Click Link Below To Buy: http://hwcampus.com/shop/ged-260-criminology-unit-exam-3/ 1) Which of the following is not one of the ideas contributed to the criminologicalliterature by labeling theory? A) Deviant individuals achieve their status by virtue of social definition. B) Deviance is the consequence of a quality inherent in human activity. C) Labeling by society tends to perpetuate crime. D) Negative self-images follow from processing by the formal criminal justicesystem.
Criminal Procedure Probable Cause Article Summary Sherita Burress CJA/364 November 21, 2011 Maxine Craig Supreme Court Is Unsuccessful In Defining “Probable Cause In Belief Of Guilt The Supreme Court decided a case on December 15, 2004, holding a law enforcement officer accountable for arresting an individuals for having merchandise in the car that he was riding in. It was stated that the merchandised belonged to neither the passenger or the driver of the vehicle that it was found in. This well known case is the case of Maryland v. Pringle, 124 S.Ct. 795 (2003), a solid decision of the Court. In the course of finding this case, the Maryland court was held accountable for not holding the police at fault for violating the
The Co-Conspirator Rule The co-conspirator rule is the statements made by a co-conspirator made during the course of the conspiracy and in furtherance of the conspiracy are not hearsay (Gardner and Anderson, 2010, pg. 186). For example, Tony and Terry are two drug dealers who agree to work together to import a large shipment of marijuana from south of the border. If Tony and Terry use Larry’s car to bring the drugs across the border, Larry can be found to be a co-conspirator. In this case, all the prosecution would have to do to convict Larry is to prove that the car used to transport the drugs across the border belonged to him, and of course, that Larry consented to use of his car for the activity.
3 Way Analyses: Three items have been published about the recent ACC report on drugs in sport. The first is a letter to The Age written by Sue Leong, she has a realistic understanding tone with the contention that it’s not the athletes fault, that it’s the enormous pressures that we (the public) put on them. The next piece is an opinion piece written by Craig Fry in the age, published on the 12/02/13. He has a frustrated, common sense tone with the contention that the government and drug commission are wasting their time trying to expose athletes and catch them out and punish them. The last item is a cartoon drawn by Spooner and is showing that they waste court time and PED’s are easily obtainable, the tone is sarcastic.
Case Study: “Letting the Big Ones Get Away – A Focus On Ethics” crashn Criminal Justice (CCJS100 Section 7980) – April 22, 2012 The case, as presented in the syllabus and the text book (Fuller, 2010), is very slim on the actual facts of the case. The first step the prosecutor should take is to investigate other factors concerning the discovery of the cocaine. Some questions the prosecutor should ask are: where exactly in the house were the drugs found? Where they in or on the drug dealer? Where the drugs located in the common area of the house?