Bob Adelmann Case Summary

In this case, I am presenting an individual citizens Fourth Amendment protection captivated from Jones and others individuals. The government started investigating Jones with a suspicions conspiracy of drug trafficking. A tracking device installed on the defendants’ vehicle after a terminated authorize a warrant permanent to the Government to search and install a GPA on Jones vehicle. Antoine Jones and others with the same conspiracy of the investigation were sentenced life imprisoned by the District Court Juries of Washington District of Columbia. The jury found Jones guilty of drug trafficking and possessions. The 12 amendments proposed in 1789, that constitutions the Bill of Rights under no circumstance to protections individualities

The Court of Appeals reversed and filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: "(1) apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; (2) deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a

The guarantee of the speedy trial is one of the fundamental liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights. The right has some limitations: it is activated only when the criminal prosecution has begun and applies only to those people who have been accused during the prosecution. There are only two cases known so far in which the Court held that the speedy trial right has been violated: Smith v. Hooey (1969) and Dickey v. Florida (1970). In these cases the States preferred criminal charges against people who were already confined in prisons of other jurisdictions as a

The Eighth Amendment however, does not guarantee an absolute right to be released on bail before trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has identified

In the supreme court Muehler v. Mena case, Mena sued the officers in federal district court for violating her 4th amendments rights. The fourth amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The officers heard that there was that she was affiliated with gang violence and deadly weapons so they searched the house that Mena and others were in. The officers did things like handcuff Mena and the others. They also questioned her about her immigration status. She believed this violated her 4th amendment rights that should protect her from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Mena tried suing the officers in federal district court for violating her Fourth Amendment rights after this. She felt

The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are most notable for their protection of the rights of suspected and accused individuals. All to often we forget it also covers the rights of those persons convicted of a crime. There are two positions when it comes the rights of convicted and imprisoned persons, which are rights-are-retained and rights-are-lost. In retrospect, they are both right because prisoners rights may not be granted rights nor shall rights be withheld that are not supported by law. Therefore, prisoners are given Conditional Rights because they are constrained by the legitimate needs of imprisonment. The Conditional Rights of inmates are communication and vision, religious freedom, access to the courts and legal assistance,

One of the darkest moments for anyone is being the center of a criminal investigation. Many emotions can fuel statements that may not be in the best interest of the suspect. These statements can turn a suspect into a defendant relatively easy. Without proper, sufficient legal council, a defendant can be a convicted criminal. If the defendant was aware of his rights, the outcome could be inherently different. The United States is one of very few nations that will provide legal counsel for criminal matters. Every so often a person becomes a spectacle in our Judicial System and case law becomes of it. Sometimes, the case law is beneficial for the government such as Florence v Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County, citing that strip searches of inmates regardless of the crimes they committed without probable cause is justified in the interest of inmate, staff, and jail safety. Other case law such as Miranda v. Arizona it reinforces constitutional rights for United States citizens. Miranda v. Arizona is case law that mandates the government to inform people of their constitutional rights during a criminal investigation. Many people often argue, so what. They are guilty, why do suspects have any rights anyway. Simply put, we are a Constitutional Democracy with established rules, norms and values. What makes our nation so wonderful is we are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Circumstantial evidence leading authorities to assume a person is

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

Facts: John Brady (petitioner) and Charles Boblit were found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to death. Convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals in Maryland. Their trials were processed separately. At Brady’s trial, he took stand and maintained that he participated in the preceding robbery, but not in the killing. At the sentencing, both men received the death penalty. Brady’s counsel conceded that Brady was guilty of murder in the first degree, and asking the jury to return that verdict “without capital punishment. Prior to the trial counsel requested to examine Boblit’ s extra judicial statements. Several statements were shown to Petitioner’s counsel; but the one was dated on July 09, 1958, in which Boblit admitted the actual homicide, was

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

During our negotiation with D.G. Barnhouse (DGB), we intend to utilize an integrative bargaining strategy with management. Before coming to this conclusion, we weighed the advantages and disadvantages of a distributive approach, however, we eventually decided to take an integrative and predominantly interest based stance versus a position based stance in our negotiations after assessing internal and external environmental factors. In addition, we settled on this strategy because we ultimately believe that management and the union share at the very least, one fundamental common interest, which is the firm’s financial stability. That being said, even with our plans to use integrative bargaining, we still plan to negotiate assertively to achieve

Today our world is filled with criminals. These criminals commit their crimes, and then get caught by law enforcement agencies. They get detained, processed, and see a judge. “Guilty! I sentence you to prison for x amount of years”. After a judge says that phrase to an offender, at that very moment you end up having limited rights. After one is convicted of a crime/ offense, one’s constitutional rights are taken away. One of the most controversial amendments that aren’t applied to prisoners is the fourth Amendment of the U.S. constitution.The fourth amendment to the United States

The novel The Trial identifies a citizen with no constitutional rights. The government of his country was weak and oppressive. Joseph K the protagonist in the novel struggled with depression, loneliness, frustration and anxiety after his arrest and trying to deal with the coming interrogations, court sessions and a lengthy trial. Citizens in the United States of America with a democratic government, constitutional rights are guaranteed under the United States Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of The Land. “US Constitution”.

The case of the United States v. Salerno was about whether or not there is an absolute right to bail. Salerno believed that the Federal bail reform act of 1984 violated his 5th Amendment due process rights and his 8th Amendment right to excessive bail. This act allowed people to be detained if they were a threat to the community. Racquets in the opinion stated that the 8th Amendment didn't expect there to be a need for no bail like there is today. The Outcome was that Salerno lost the case and it established that Liberty is the norm, and detention is a carefully limited

Back when Apple first unveiled the iPad, consumers who purchased the iPad with cellular/3G data capabilities were required to purchase a contract with AT&T and register their accounts online using an AT&T website. The registration process assigned the customer’s email address as their user ID. AT&T, in an attempt to simplify the login process for return users, programmed the website to autofill the customer’s user ID (email address) based on a unique identifier programmed into the SIM card of the user’s new iPad. When the website detected this unique identifier, only associated with an iPad, it would populate the user ID field accordingly.