Case Citation : Maryland V. Pringle 540 U.s. Essay

I asked STINSON if he had anything on him and if I could search him. Stinson verbally consented allowing me to search his person. Upon searching his person, nothing illegal was found. I asked STINSON if I could search his pink back pack that he was wearing. STINSON stated "I rather you not." I asked STINSON if there was something illegal in the back pack. STINSON replied yes. I asked STINSON what he had illegal in his back pack. STINSON stated he had a "little bit of weed." Upon STINSON admitting to me that he had illegal narcotics in his back pack, I conducted a probable cause search of the back pack. Upon opening the front pocket of the back pack, I found a silver spoon with a white powdery substance on the spoon. The spoon was partially sealed within plastic. I conducted a field test on the white powdery substance on the spoon following instructions on the test kit. The test kit showed turned

Maryland police officers pulled a vehicle over for speeding at approximately 3am on 7 August 1999. The police officers found three men in the vehicle. The driver was Donte Partlow, the front seat passenger and defendant Joseph Pringle, and the backseat passenger Otis Smith. One of the police officers asked the owner and driver of the vehicle for his license and registration. When Partlow opened the glove box, the police officer observed a large amount of money in the glove box. The police officer checked for outstanding warrants and issued Partlow a warning. Then the officer asked for permission to search his vehicle. Upon searching the vehicle the police officer found the money he had seen earlier as well as five baggies of cocaine in-between the armrest and back seat. All three occupants in the vehicle were questioned and denied any knowledge or ownership of the cocaine. Subsequently all three men were arrested and brought back to the police station for questioning. Pringle waived his rights after being given a Miranda warning and confessed that the cocaine was his and he intended to sell it. He claimed that the other occupants in the vehicle had no knowledge of the drugs. At trial, Pringle moved to suppress his confession, claiming that it was the result of an illegal arrest. The court denied his motion, and

We discussed the recent mob uprising and the state of unrest in the community. It was the judgment of all present that the life of the defendant, even if the wrong man, could not be saved; that an appeal would so inflame the public that the jail would be attacked and perhaps other prisoners executed by violence. In the opinion of all of us a case was presented where the defendant, now that he had been convicted by a jury, must die by the judgment of the law, or else, if his case were appealed, he would die by the act of the uprising of the people (Pfeifer, “United”).

Teagle 170 P.3d 266 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007), defendant Teagle was pulled over after being observed speeding down the highway. When the officer approached the vehicle, he noticed two cellular phones on the dashboard, an open container of liquor, fast-food wrappers, a box of cookies, a map, and luggage and clothing in the backseat. The officer gave the defendant a warning and then asked him if there was any contraband in the vehicle or whether there was a chance anyone else could have placed any contraband in the vehicle. Although the defendant answered in the negative, the officer returned to his patrol vehicle and asked if there was a canine unit available. There was not and so the officer told the defendant that he was free to leave. Shortly afterwards, the officer saw the defendant speeding once again down the road. The officer proceeded to pull him over and gave him another warning. The officer again asked him if he could search the vehicle and the defendant answered in the affirmative. The officer called a canine unit which arrived an hour later. The canine, in proceeding to do an exterior sniff, circled around to the trunk. The officers then opened the trunk to find 338 pounds of marijuana, a can of air freshener under the driver’s seat and several toilet bowl sanitizers in the compartment ofthe vehicle as well as the trunk. These were all indicative of an attempt to mask the smell of marijuana. At trial, the defendant argued that he had taken his vehicle to a repair shop, implying that someone else had placed the drugs in the car. The court found that there was enough evidence, including the large amount of drugs in the trunk of the vehicle, the air freshener, and the inconsistent statements to determine that the defendant had sufficient knowledge of the marijuana in the

“The power to tax involves the power to destroy.” This is what the Supreme Court determined in the landmark decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. Presently churches or religious establishments are tax exempt. Many people vividly oppose the government’s stance on the issue, but though the government does many things wrong, as many will tell you, this is not one one of them.

Supreme Court Case Sheppard V. Maxwell is the first case in American history to question whether the American right to a fair trial should be interrupted by the American right to freely publish one’s thoughts and opinions. Sheppard’s conviction, brought on by the biased eye of the press, was exonerated. However, concluded from the lack of policy alterations post-trial, the Sheppard V. Maxwell case still informally decided media is no real threat in the court system. Some may say otherwise. Although media may not directly affect court rulings, the press can certainly affect the public’s opinion, which in turn can affect a court case.

Morris, 331 N.W.2d 48, 53 (N.D. 1983)); Florida v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 2012) (discussing the difference between actual and constructive possession); Brent v. State, 957 N.E.2d 648, 648, 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (holding that the defendant did not have actual or constructive possession of a bag of drugs located on the ground, beside a vehicle, that the defendant was in); Hunter v. Commonwealth, 690 S.E.2d 792, 794, 799 (Va. 2010) (holding that the evidence would have supported a charge of constructive possession of a firearm when the defendant/passenger stated that the gun located in the driver’s glovebox was his, but he was not charged with that crime); Martinez v. State, 152 P.3d 1237, 1243 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the defendant’s case must be reversed because he was not aware of the required mental state to plead guilty to constructive possession); Campbell v. People, 73 P.3d 11, 14 (Colo. 2003) (holding that the State must prove that the accused had actual or constructive possession of the drug); Washington v. McPherson, 46 P.3d 284, 291 (Wash. 2002) (holding that the defendant had actual possession of drugs found in another person’s pocket under the accomplice liability theory); Sims v. Alabama, 733 So. 2d 926, 929 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998) (holding that the defendant had actual possession of the drugs located under the driver’s seat of a vehicle he

The case, Murray vs. Pearson had been attacking the school legally since that summer and successfully sued the University of Maryland to admit a young African American Amherst University graduate named Donald Gaines Murray.

As part of their journalism class students produced a newspaper with a collection of student-written articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on kids. As a result, the principal made the decision to delete the two articles from that edition of the school’s newspaper. Consequently, three students sued the school district alleging violation of their First Amendment rights.

As an important landmark case in Congress and the Supreme Court History, McCulloch V. Maryland. Which set the guidelines for how much power congress really had as well as how much power the constitution had over state laws. It put attention the issue of a state taxing a federal bank in 1816. Maryland imposed a law that called for the taxation of banks in the state that was not chartered by state legislature during the depression of 1818. The second bank of the United States had refused to pay the tax claiming that it was unconstitutional. Leading the case to be taken to state court then the Supreme Court.

The Federal District court denied this motion to suppress the block of methamphetamine and prosecuted Bond finding him guilty of conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute. Moreover, Bond challenged the judgment made on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on grounds that the court should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence since it was a violation of his right under the Fourth Amendment and because as per the petitioner, Bond, the officer had manipulated the bag in a way that other passengers would not have. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected his argument and affirmed the lower court’s

An example would be if a police officer stops a driver for speeding, and in the course of issuing the citation they discover cocaine in the glove compartment of the car. If the defendant did not consent to the search, and if the police did not have probable cause to believe illegal drugs could be found in the glove compartment,

The McCullough Vs. Maryland case’s significance was that it was the first to question the power of the federal government. It began when the war of 1812 had ended and the U.S. had acquired a lot of debt. Congress founded the 2nd bank of the United States of America to help pull the country out of debt. At first, the people were happy with Congress’ decision because the bank was a great success, but as the states sensed a financial crisis, known as the Financial Crisis of 1819, they began to dislike the bank. The states were angered by the fact that they had less power than the federal government and decided to rebel and fight back.

The other three Supreme Court decisions were In re Winship (1970), in which the Court found that when establishing guilt of criminal charges the strict "reasonable-doubt" standard must be applied to both adults and juveniles alike; McKiever v. Pennsylvania (1971), in which the Court ruled that because juvenile cases are not considered either civil or criminal, the whole of the Sixth Amendment does not necessarily apply, and, therefore, there is no requirement for a jury trial in juvenile cases; and Breed v. Jones (1975), in which the Supreme Court held that trying a juvenile in an adult court after an adjudication in juvenile court constituted double

Additionally, Riley had a green sunglass case in his lap lying next to the bag. As police contacted Riley he attempted to empty the baggie on the floor of the vehicle. Riley was removed from the vehicle and placed under arrest. During an incident to arrest of search Riley, I searched and opened the green sunglass case as it was in his possession at the time of his arrest.