Totality Of Circumstance: Court Case Analysis

MILLERSBURG — Despite a plea for leniency expressed by the victim, a Sugarcreek man was unable to overcome a long history of criminal convictions and a bond violation when a Holmes County judge on Wednesday sentenced him to prison for making unwanted phone calls and threats to several members of a family over a period of months.

Facts: The respondent Raymond Place was stopped by Federal Agents (DEA) upon his arrival into LaGuardia Airport on a Friday afternoon. The respondent refused to consent to the search of his luggage. His luggage was seized by the agents under suspicion they contained narcotics. The respondent was informed the agents would be obtaining a search warrant from a judge. The luggage was then transferred to Kennedy Airport where the bags were sniffed by drug detection dogs approximately 90 minutes after the initial seizure. The dogs performed a “sniff” and detected

In the case, the Court did not see sufficient evidence to support the claim that the police violated the respondent’s Fourth Amendment right, prior to entering the resident. There is no evidence of threats or demands made by the police officers, that would insinuate the officer did anything wrong. Because the police in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency, the Court held that the exigency did in fact justify the warrantless search. The officers re-acted upon suspicion and training (Vile, n.d.).

Riley was stopped for driving on expired license plates by San Diego police officer. The police officer found out Riley’s license was also expired, which resulted in the impounding of the his vehicle. During the inventory of the vehicle, officers found firearms stashed in a sock under his car’s hood a. People v. Riley, No. D059840, 2013 WL 475242, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2013). While searching Riley before his arrest, an officer found evidence of Riley’s association with the “Bloods” street gang. See Riley, 134 S. Ct. at 2480. The police seized and searched Riley’s smart phone without a warrant, which uncovered further evidence of gang relationships. The police discovered records that placed Riley’s phone at a shooting three weeks earlier. See Riley, 2013 WL 475242, at *1–2. The trial court judge denied a motion to suppress after finding that the search fell within the scope of the search-incident-to-arrest exception. See id. at *3. Riley was convicted of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, shooting at an occupied vehicle, and attempted murder.

How well does the Australian Legal System deal with the contemporary issue (drug use and the law)

According to the Fourth Amendment, people have the right to be secure in their private property, and may only be searched with probable cause. However, in a recent case, this right was violated by the government. An Oregon citizen, with the initials of DLK, was suspected of growing marijuana in his home. The federal government used a thermal imager to scan his home, and were later given a warrant to physically search his home. However, many remain divided over whether or not this scan was constitutional, as there was no warrant at the time of the scan. The government’s actions were not constitutional, because they did not follow the precedent case, used technology that exceeded human senses, and violated DLK’s right to privacy in his home.

The first case that I’m going to talk about is the Erma Faye Stewart case and Regina Kelly case. These two women were charged with felony drug distribution charges. This case took place in Hearne, Texas back in 2000. Stewart and Kelly along with 25 other men were charged in this case. Everybody bail was set to 70,000 each. The police knew about the drugs because a confidential informant. Erna Stewart had two kids and Regina Kelly had four kids. The two ladies had no minor criminal history before and were unsure about the system. Stewart and Kelly didn’t have any money so they have to use the lawyer that was chosen for them. The ladies said they were innocence and trusted that the lawyer would get them out of this horrible situation. The ladies

Police should wear body cameras because playing body cameras could improve the public’s view of police by showing the human side, help to provide evidence when a person may not be able to, and it protects the officers and public both.

“A good first step forward is to start treating prisoners as a human being, not profiting from their incarceration.” ( Bernie Sanders). The prison system is only thinking about money because they don't care the effect it has in people's life when they are sentenced unfairly. The U.S Prison system is unfair, and two of the most important aspects to understand about it are the war on drugs and racism.

The case involves a 12 year old child named Griffin Grimbly who told the teacher that he was beaten with a clothesline by his father Mr.Gimli. In court, the Mr.Gimli argued that he was devoted to Christian and was following the Biblical injunction on child rearing, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, as well as arguing that s 43 of the criminal code gives parents the right to use “reasonable force” in disciplining their children.

A few years ago I was living with my mother in Yuma. I lived with her for almost my whole life with joint custody shared between the two of my parents. I went to the school district that was in the boundaries of my mom's residence because more of the time shared between joint custody was with my mother. I always did okay in school up until two years ago. My mom has alway been a single parent ever since her and my dad split up. She was always way too nice and dated the wrong type of guys. She ended up dating this guy two years ago, she was too blind to see he was an addict. One day when we were at my dad's house over the weekend, the cops were called to her house because there was an incident of a gunshot. My mom had called the cops because her ex boyfriend had shot himself by accident. They ended up putting a search warrant on her home and found drugs

Even if the addressing officer does use a breathalyzer test to determine if your BAC is over the limit, he still has to read your rights to you. If he fails to do so then your case may end up being dismissed. If your rights were not read to you when you were arrested it is important to let your attorney

Officer Raney did not ask Henderson if he could search for drugs in her car, thus she was unlawfully charged on Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11379. Subd. (a). Based on the scenario in Crenshaw, Officer Randolph asked the driver directly if he “had any drugs in the vehicle” and whether he could search “for drugs.” In Bell, Officer David asked the driver if he had any cocaine in his car. The driver replied with a “no” and did not allow Officer David to search the car. In Cantor, Officer Werzoerick, also followed the same protocol as the previous officers by asking Cantor “Nothing illegal in the car or anything like that? Mind if I check ‘real quick’ and get you on your way?” As a result, the defendant gave permission to Office Werzoerick to search the car knowing that they were going to search for

One of the police officers planted marijuana in Johnston's house after the shooting. Later investigations found that the paperwork stating that drugs present at Johnston's house, which had been the basis for the raid, had been falsified. The cops later admitted to having lied when they submitted cocaine as evidence claiming that they had bought it at Johnston's house. Three of them were tried for manslaughter and other charges surrounding falsification and were sentenced to ten, six, and five years.

Sasho Gorgievski ( the accused) was arrested on 29 August 2014 on the basis of possessing methylamphetamine (meth) and an intent to supply or sell the drug. On 17 August 2015 the accused appeared at the District Court of Western Australia (courtroom 3.1 at 10am). The prosecutor, the state of Western Australia, is represented by Mr Gaurl (the prosecution). The accused is defended by Mr Fort (the defence). Juris Levy is responsible for making the judgment of this case. The following analyses the different roles and duties performed during the trial of issues on 17 August. This report also comments on the proceedings and a potential reason of appeal. The sentencing of this case is still to be decided and is currently scheduled for 14 October