Case Briefs: Case: State v. Marshall, 179 S.E. 427 (N.C. 1935). Opinion by: Stacy C.J. Facts: A homicide occurred at the defendant’s filling station. At the filling station the deceased was previously drinking and was sweet talking the defendant’s wife in a whispering conversation. The deceased was asked to leave the building, yet the defendant order him more than once.
The Majority of the court 's decision includes McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. The court had to decide in this case whether the seriousness of an offence or knowing that one might be a threat to public safety can be a justification to stop anyone without having solid evidence against them. The court stated that both Mr. Clayton and Mr. Farmer were guilty of carrying concealed weapons in a public place. The police had the right to search them even though their car didn’t match the description described by the 911 caller because the officers have to be consistent with their duty towards public safety and act in accordance to the seriousness of the
The case of Florida versus Jardines was heard before the Supreme Court on October 31, 2012 and a decision was made on March 26, 2013. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jardines. This case challenged the fundamental core of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The ruling of this case has impacted how law officials handle searches and the use of drug dogs. This case also challenged the boundary line of where personal property starts.
Canada is talked amongst other countries throughout the world as a safe, secure place to live. Majority of people do not know the heinous crimes that take place in Canada daily, especially whilst using a gun. Canada does not come close to the United States when comparing mass shootings, death by a gun, or homicides using a gun; although, the gun crimes in Canada are not improving. While Canada has more stringent gun laws than the united states, gun control in Canada should still be improved for citizen’s safety. Canada is often praised for having more efficient gun laws than the United States, but most people do not know that Canadian laws too, have much room for improvement.
The case of R. v. Schoenborn is a troubling case involving the death of three children and the defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This defence must be critically analyzed along with the evidence and expert opinions as it could absolve the accused of the charges. As well, the precedent that the verdict provides is critical to the legal system and its future implication and thus give the decision more importance. After a thorough examination of the facts, it is evident that the verdict of the Supreme Court of British Columbia is correct and reflects the administration’s objectives and beliefs. This will be demonstrated through the application of legal principles and elements.
The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants.
In light of this test, it was deemed by the court that the mistake made by the officers was an understandable one, given the legal uncertainty of when an encounter turns to detention, and therefore there is no evidence that the admission of the gun would bring the administration of justice into any further disrepute. Even though the breach on the accused’s protected rights were significant, as it prompted incriminating statements from the accused, the evidence itself is highly reliable and rising gun crimes were a serious enough problem in the eyes of the Ontario public that on balance the admission was acceptable. -(Per Binnie J., concurring in
The case Howes v. Fields was involved with the Miranda rights. The case is about an inmate´s confession about a sex crime without having the police officers questioning him telling him his Miranda rights. Mr. Fields had been brought to the jail of Michigan because of disorderly conduct. While being in jail Mr. Fields had been questioned by the police for several hours about the disorderly conduct. He was not told his Miranda rights, but he was told he was free to go back to his cell whenever he wanted too.
An exaplple of n the fourth amendment was being violated is the case, Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S 465, 475 (1921) is the case that stared the debate of public and private searches. this case is about a privtae person enterning and searching McDowell 's office. he seized specific papers and turned them over a public prosecutor who wantted to use it in court. Since eveince was not a pursuant and the government did not play a role in the prcoess of the searcha nd seizure the court ruled for the papers to be returned.
This case is about a man named Ronald Sparrow, who was criminally charged in 1984 for fishing with a drift net that exceeded regulation length under Section. 61(1) of the Fisheries Act. Sparrow is part of a Canadian-First Nations Band called Musqueam, and argued that S. 61(1) violates his rights under S. 35 of the Canadian Constitution. S. 35, guarantees all first nations, the protection of their fishing, logging, hunting, and land rights. The Crown’s argument was that Sparrow knowingly violated his food fishing license, however according to Sparrow, this law was inconsistent with S.35.
A few days, police received an anonymous tip that Virgil Ogletree, a suspect in the bombing, was at the home Dollree Mapp. The police soon arrived, and asked to be let in, but Mapp demanded to see a warrant. Later, when another officer arrived, they believed they had a warrant and forced their way into the home. Mapp once again demanded a warrant and an officer took out a sheet of paper and waved it in front of Mapp without letting her look at it. It was later revealed that this wasn’t a warrant.
United States v. Miller Kalyn Reading The case of the United States vs Miller is an intriguing case to say the least. It started with two men trying to transport sawed off shotguns and ended with a little bit of blood and some prison time. This was a case best explain by Doctor Brian L Frye in his paper The Peculiar Story of United States vs. Miller. “On June 2, 1938, Miller and Layton were both indicted on one count of violating 26 U.S.C. § 1132(c) by transporting an untaxed short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce.
United States v. Morrison was a supreme court case about violence against women. In 1944 while enrolled at Virginia polytechnic institute, Christy Brzonkala alleged that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford sexually assaulted her. Both male students were varsity football players. In 1995 Christy filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech 's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty and Crawford was not. A second hearing again found Morrison guilty. After an appeal through the university 's administrative system, Morrison 's punishment was set aside, as it was found to be "excessive." Ultimately, Brzonkala dropped out of the university. . Brzonkala then filed to sue Morrison, Crawford, and
In Commonwealth v. Newman, 429 PA. 441 (1968), on November 16, 1964, at about 11:30 a.m. four detectives went to appellant 's home with a body warrant for appellant and a search warrant for the premises. The complaint for the search warrant recited that the affiant, Detective John McCrory, deposed that there was probable cause to believe that certain books, papers, and other items used for the purpose of a lottery were in the possession of Henderson Newman at or near 721 West Mary Street. They forcefully entered the appellant 's home without announcement or purpose. The court held that, the forcible entry without announcement of purpose violates the Fourth Amendment. The fruits of an illegal search are inadmissible under Mapp v. Ohio,
The case United States v. Lawson, 2009 WL 1916063 (Ky. 2009) deals extensively with FRE Rule 404(b). In the case four different items of evidence are viewed for admissibility under Rule 404. The case focuses on three co-defendants who are charged with five counts of bribery conspiracy and three counts of conspiracy on construction or repair of state roads and highways. The motion viewed focuses on Nighbert, a co-defendant, and his objections to admitting certain evidence against him under Rule 404(b). The four items are: an FBI report of an alleged conversation Nighbert had with the mayor regarding his son, failed disclosure on financial forms of his ownership of a company, an FBI interview concerning Kentucky road contracts and Nighbert, and a newspaper article regarding the defendant’s property and nearby construction. Nighbert objected to these items, claiming they were irrelevant, immaterial, lacking probative value, confusing, and prejudicial.