But the court in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte used a different test for consent searches and it’s the voluntariness test or totality of the circumstances. In this test knowledge to refuse consent is a factor but it is not a requirement the main requirement is on police coercion, this means that the officer did not force Alcala to search the vehicle. In this case Officer Rand asked Alicia to search the vehicle and he said sure this shows that did not use police coercion, because he voluntarily answer and submitted. It would have been coercion if Alcala said “no” and then Rand started saying things like “you’ve got nothing to hide let me search the car”. So the consent was voluntary because Alcala was not coercion into allowing the search by Officer
After Arthur was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in 2011, the men decided to marry and fully commit to each other before Arthur’s death from the fatal disease. They were married in Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal, just three months before Arthur’s death. Because Ohio does not recognize same-sex marriages, Obergefell was not able to be named on Arthur’s death certificate as surviving spouse. The suit was filed in an attempt for Obergefell to be listed in this way.
DeMichel provides that the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizure while requiring law enforcement personnel to provide notice of their identity and announce their purpose when entering upon private premises. The court found it unreasonable for the officers to forcible enter the premises with first giving the occupant an opportunity to voluntarily surrender the premises. Our client’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the plain clothed officers entered the premises without announcing their purpose and without providing Mr. Clavel the appropriate time to voluntarily open his door and surrender the premises for search. The unlawful search and seizure led to Mr. Clavel’s charges of intent to distribute
I was also tasked that if I discovered evidence suggesting a violation of other putative articles of the UCMJ to include such items. In this I find that SFC Pereira is may also be guilty of Article 92 violations on an occasion where the duties assigned to him, or regulations governing his behavior were not personally agreeable. Two separate instances were documented during my investigation. The first was that during the GRAY EAGLE test event setup, O/A 7-9 April 2015, SFC Pereira refused to take direction from the test leadership, as he was given a lawful order, and had a duty to obey said order but refused. He was removed from the test event due to his continued failure to follow directives given to him by senior members of the test team.
The general argument made by Shiha Dalmia in her work, “The Case Against Banning Guns” is that guns should not be banned in the United States. Banning guns is not going to stop people from killing other people. There is no possible way to collect every single gun in the U.S. and even if there was, people have other ways and items to hurt others. When something gets banned, everyone seems like they want to do that thing more. Guns should only be used for appropriate activities like hunting, for example, but there is no one to stop people from harming others.
Durke believes that the government shouldn’t have the power to decide the color of Cisneros’s house. Durke asked that “what makes city government think it knows what’s best for us?” Durke’s point is that sometimes the decisions of the government are inappropriate for its people. Durke emphasizes that people should be free to manage their lives without government inference. I disagree with because all the following of the information prove that the government regulations make sure the maximum benefits for its people. The government regulates that all drivers must have driver licenses.
The development of technology was an unforeseen source of dispute in interpreting and applying the Constitution. Technologic aid in investigating crime and gathering evidence is often up for debate, particularly in the context of the Fourth Amendment. In the case at hand, petitioner Chester Comerford seeks to suppress evidence of his involvement in drug manufacture and distribution on the basis of a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) made use of warrantless IMSI tracking to establish probable cause for a later warrant. For a number of reasons to be addressed, the FBI did not need a warrant to obtain this information, and thus the evidence shall not be suppressed. The court should uphold Comerford’s conviction on the basis of the following discussion.
Nixon didn’t want to turn the tapes over so he said he didn’t have to because of ‘executive privilege’. This caused the Supreme Court to question executive privilege. They wanted to know if executive privilege is immune to subpoenas or immune to giving up evidence in criminal
Last and final reason is the US vs Jones. The US installed a Global Positioning System on Jones's car. I believe they went too far by doing this, the government shouldn't be allowed to put a system on somebody's car and track them. The only way they should be able too is probable suspicion or if they had an issued
Assisted suicide is currently legal in Oregon, Washington, California, Montana, and Vermont. Some other places, including Quebec, the Netherlands, and Colombia, allow assisted death. Assisted suicide should not be legal because it goes against what hospitals and doctors stand for. Assisted suicide should be illegal because it breaks the Hippocratic Oath that most doctors are required to take. In the Hippocratic Oath, it states that "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan (Haerens)”.
Four dissenting judges believed that the full legal context of the Second Amendment should have been reviewed. Heller v. District of Columbia was brought into question for the dissent and how it addressed concealed carry restrictions. According to the dissent the Heller case ensured that the government was not to deprive its citizens of a constitutional right to carry firearms and that concealed carry extended beyond private property. In a separate dissent, Judge Silverman and Judge Bea argued that the near complete refusal of certain counties to administer concealed carry permits would fail to pass any form of scrutiny. The dissent also stated that, while statistically insignificant, concealed carry may not reduce the violent crime rates; however, they do not contribute to more of it.
The first point that was issued in the dissent is that Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, believe that Mr. Martin is not a customer of the tour. That Title III only covers customers; the court ruled that Mr. Martin was a customer and those golf courses whether public or private must make reasonable accommodations. Justice Scalia compares a pro baseball player stating that they participate and play at fields but are certainly not considered customers of the league (PGA Tour, Inc v. Martin, 2001). Title III does not require "... 'modifications [that] would fundamentally alter the nature ' of the goods, services, and privileges." (PGA Tour, Inc v. Martin, 2001 Justice Scalia believes that the use of a golf cart does alter the game.
The general public is okay that some criminals go free if it means police will not violate the 4th amendment. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained illegally shall not be used in the court of law. It also states any evidence found because of the piece of illegal evidence is invalid. The exclusionary rule was first introduced in federal courts with the case Weeks V USA 1919. The rule did not apply to the states until 1961 in Maps V Ohio when they stated it was arrogant to have a rule that only applies to federal courts.
Name of case: PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin Court: U.S. Supreme Court Citation: 531 U.S. 1049 (2001) Parties & their roles: PGA Tour, Inc. (Plaintiff/petitioner); Casey Martin (Respondents/defendants) Facts: Casey Martin, a talented golfer has a disability that causes severe pain and has atrophied his right leg. This disability has been defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). In his college career, the Pacific 10 Conference and the NCAA waived the rules that required Martin to walk and carry his own clubs. The PGA Tour, Inc. is a non-profit entity which was formed in 1968. This tour sponsors and cosponsors professional golf tournaments.
This story comes to us from the little town of Olathe Kansas via the Los Angeles Times. However, this story was also on the front-page of The New York Times. Our author, David Eulitt, leads with the defendant telling jurors he didn 't care what sentence was handed down. The author continues, Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe had urged the jury to recommend a death sentence. The jury convicted 74-year-old Frazier Glenn Miller Jr. of capital murder for the April 2014 shootings, Eulitt notes.