Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

CASE BRIEFS General Guidelines "BRIEFING" CASES A crucial part of studying law is learning how to understand the importance of a case decision and what crucial issues the court is addressing. The best way to learn legal reasoning and to understand case law is by summarizing the case yourself in what is commonly called a "brief". A brief is simply a format in which the case is summarized and the key portions discussed. Law school and advanced legal education is almost completely dedicated to learning the law by reading and briefing cases.

Brief Arizona v. Hicks 480 U.S. 321 (1987) Facts: A bullet was fired through the floor of Hick’s apartment on April 18th, 1987. The bullet injured a man in the apartment below Hick’s apartment. Police officers arrived at Hick’s apartment to investigate the shooting. Upon investigating, the police officers seized 3 weapons and a stocking mask. Also, while investigating, one of the police officers noticed expensive stereo equipment.

Analysis of issues in the motion to suppress. Argument a) The police relied on the information provided by CRI-2 to form the ground for an affidavit seeking to obtain a search warrant. The information from CRI-2 was not credible and could not be independently be relied upon or verified.

To: Junior Associate From: Supervising Attorney Re: DC v. Blake Mr. Jonathan Blake, a new client of the firm, recently requested our legal services in a criminal matter. Mr. Blake was recently arrested for possession of a controlled substance by the Metropolitan Police Department. According to Mr. Blake, the facts are as follows: Jessie Smith and his wife are the co-owners of a residence at 3630 16th St. NW, Washington DC, 20015.

The efforts Edina Broward made to research about her stolen painting will probably considered as diligent efforts which prevent statute of limitation from starting to run. Ms.Broward tried to find her stolen painting by many means. First of all, The police was notified by her as well as a private investigator was hired to help to find the stolen painting. Similar to Everett v. Rogers, where the owner of stolen painting informed the police and was going to hire private investigator.

The first case that caused the Supreme Court to allow officers to authorize a search and seizure, was the Terry vs. Ohio case in 1968. The case ruled whether or not it violated the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection from an unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court then determined that the practice of stopping and frisking a suspect in public does not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the officer has a “reasonable suspicion”. Suspicions such as a person that may seem like they’re planning a crime, have committed a crime, or that may be armed and appear as dangerous. The reason why this policy escalated was due to an incident that happened On October 31, 1963 in Cleveland, Ohio.

4.2.1. Article 14 - The non-discrimination clause In the European Convention on Human Rights, signed in 1950, there is only one mention of minorities; Article 14, its non-discrimination clause, states: The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention must be ensured, without distinction of any kind, based in particular on sex, race, color language, religion, political opinions or any other opinions, national or social origin, belonging to a national minority, fortune, birth or any other situation. (Carrera et al, 28) As its wording makes clear, Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights is not a general clause of non-discrimination or a provision on equality or equality before the law.

Children have a right to get justice as such their evidence is very essential to protect their rights and interests guaranteed by law, against the offender. Earlier, the law in the United States, U.K, Australia and India has taken restrictive use of evidence of child witnesses and regarded them inherently not reliable. When children have been permitted to testify, they have done so on the basis of what is told to them by somebody else. These suspicions about the reliability of child witnesses are seen in the competency requirement and the requirement for corroboration still in existence in various countries.

This exception should and should not be extended to warrantless searches when an officer has a good-faith belief that probable cause exists depending on the circumstances. A warrantless search is from a different perspective. It is a legally consented search due to exigent circumstances, emergency, and plain view. The warrantless search conducted by good faith should suppress the evidence only when the criteria of invalid consent are not meet. If an officer abuses their authority, harasses, prolong questioning, and intimidate a detaining this ruling should apply.

Trial Prep: Notebook memorandum As a prosecutor or defense attorney, you will have testimony arise that could fall in the category of hearsay. To be prepared in advance, define hearsay and why it is important to testimony of certain witnesses. Then, break down the difference in 3 of the exceptions. HEARSAY Hearsay is defined in CRE 801 as "a statement, other than one made by the witness while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." CRE 802 bars the use of hearsay testimony, subject to certain exceptions discussed below.

Originating in the Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court, the Supreme Court case of Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973), involved a Wisconsin State Agency (Gagnon, Warden v. Scarpelli, n.d.). Later appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, this case was ruled in a liberal direction and concluded that the earlier decision is affirmed (Gagnon, Warden v. Scarpelli, n.d.). Case factors include violations of the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and the need for counsel at a revocation hearing (Gagnon, Warden v. Scarpelli, n.d.). Moreover, in this case, the court held that parolees do have a limited right to counsel in revocation proceedings (Latessa & Smith, 2015). Furthermore, that the body must determine on a case-by-case basis whether counsel should be afforded, as counsel may not always be granted (Latessa & Smith, 2015).

The exclusionary rule was first established in the case of Weeks v. United States in 1914. During the trial, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence obtained by the law enforcement officer was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and will be inadmissible in federal courts. This rule later became effective in the state courts in 1961 due to the unlawful search of Mrs. Mapp’s house in the case of Mapp v. Ohio. As a result of this case, Mrs. Mapp was convicted for possession of obscene materials but later argued that the law enforcement officer could not use the materials in the trial because they were obtained without a warrant. Although the exclusionary rule is not an independent constitutional right, it serves many purposes such as aiding in the deterrence of police misconduct and providing solutions to defendants whose

The Supreme Court case, Rochin v. California, was a case that had shocked the conscience. The brutality and laziness of the police left the petitioner, Richard Rochin, violated of his fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments. The ignorance of unreasonable search, self-incrimination, and due process led this case to be a landmark of police work and processes paralleling with the rights of the Constitution. On July 1st, 1949, three Los Angeles police officers entered Richard Rochin’s residence after a tip came through their police hotline.