Debarment Case: Jam V. United States

1.Probable cause is a set of facts surrounding a specific circumstances that leads a “reasonable person” to believe an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. Probable cause is required in the instances of an arrest, search and seizure and the issuance of a warrant. To ESTABILISH reasonable cause the officer can use any trustworthy information. For example the office could use his/her experience, informant information, first hand observations or knowledge, victim reports, anonymous tips, or hearsay.

In the Morissette v. U.S 1952 case, Joseph Morissette a scrap metal dealer took it upon himself to take what he believed was abandon casings from a government property. Because the casings belong to the government Morissette was taken to court and charged him for the violation of Article 18 USC Sec. 641 which makes it an offence to “knowingly converts” government property. Mr. Morissette knew he was taking property but did not know it belong to anyone since it had been there for many years. The trial judge did not think that was a defense so he did not instruct the jury to consider that in their deliberations. Unfortunately, because the trial judge misinterpret the definition of the statue believing it fell under a tort law at the beginning

United States v. Jones is one of many cases that the Supreme Court has ruled on. The case was one of the few cases that has a unanimous ruling. Evening though there was a unanimous rule there was still a debate on reasoning behind the ruling. The debate is between privacy given to a person’s property and a person’s expectation of privacy. United States v. Jones deals with a global positioning device attached to Jones’ car by officers without a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled that the attachment of the global positioning device was a violation of the fourth amendment. Justice Scalia gave the plurality opinion and their reasoning was that the intrusion on the car made it a violation of the fourth amendment.

Facts: Mr. Masciale was introduced to government agent Marshall by a government informer, Kowel. Mr. Masciale and Kowel had known each other for about four years and Mr. Masciale was unaware that Kowel’s was a part of some undercover activities. Therefore, Kowel introduced Marshall to Masciale as a big narcotics buyer. At the trial both Marshall and petitioner had testified concerning the ensuring conversation (supreme.justia.com. n.d.). Marshall stated in his testimony that he wanted to talk about buying a large quantity of high-grade narcotics and that if Masciale was not interested, then their conversation would be over.

Beginning in the 1960s, the US Supreme Court decided on a succession of landmark cases that histrionically altered the processes and all around atmosphere of the Juvenile Justice System in America. One case in particular that played a major role in the Juvenile field is Kent vs. US (383 US. 541 [1966]). The landmark case Kent vs. United States, observed as the first chief juvenile rights case in our history. This important case established the collective standards that entitled juveniles the right to waivers and preliminary hearings, which ensured due process was served. This would ultimately decide if the court would shift Kent into adult jurisdiction or allow him to remain in the juvenile system.

Raymond DeSABATO, Jr., and Robin DeSabato, Plaintiffs,v.UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.Civil Action No. 06–40151–FDS.March 6, 2008.

As children, we have all stepped that “boundary” between right and wrong. From stealing money to shoplifting to fighting, we have all made our parents frustrated, made poor decisions, and perhaps, even made a egregious mistake. However, when does stepping that “boundary” become irremediable? Can the government punish minors under the same criteria they do with adults? And most importantly, what does the United States Constitution say? These are all questions that both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court had to consider when they dived into the case of Roper v. Simmons. To provide a little historical

In the year 1984-1989 there was a case that struck America and shows a very good example to having your first amendment rights, not everyone will necessarily agree with this but this is how Mr. Johnson took his actions against the supreme court. This case is based on Mr. Johnson feeling violated against his first amendment right and standing up for himself and burning the American flag. Many patriotic people would completely disagree with this but, in our first amendment we have the freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Leading Mr. Johnson to this case because the American flag is supposed to represent our country and our freedom. “Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the convention center where the 1984 Republican National Convention was being held in Dallas, Texas. Johnson burned the flag to protest the policies of President Ronald Reagan. He was arrested and charged with violating a Texas statute that prevented the desecration of a venerated object, including the American flag, if such action were likely to incite anger in others. A Texas court tried and convicted Johnson. He appealed, arguing that his actions were "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment.” Based off this case with this evidence this shows how much this could affect Mr. Johnson and the public significantly.

In the case at hand, JLP v. DJP, the father appeals a decision of a trial court that circumscribed his child visitation rights to exclude overnight visits and “gay activist social gatherings.” The father’s claims that the findings of the trial court were not consistent with uncontradicted expert testimony were rejected by the appeals court on the grounds that the expert testimony was “suspect” and that the child’s exposure to homosexuality presents an inherent harm. The logic of the appeals court opinion is chalked with fallacies due to the failure to prove a link between the father’s conduct and harm to the child, judicial speculation, and the negligence to account for expert testimony. As a result the court takes greater interest in punishing

The defendant John Bass, alleged that the prosecution was seeking the death penalty against him because of the color of his skin and was granted a motion for discovery regarding the government's capital charging practices. The sixth circuit court found that Bass made a threshold showing evidence based on national statistics that "the United States charged blacks with a death-eligible offense more than twice as often as it charges whites." However, the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit, holding that a discriminatory effect could not be found because " raw statistics regarding overall charges say nothing about charges brought against similarly situated defendants."( United States v. Bass,536 U.S. 862 (2002) (per curiam)). The Supreme

In 1984 the Republican Party re-nominated Ronald Reagan as president. This re-nomination caused citizens in Texas to protest, Gorge Lee Johnson being among these protestors. Johnson and other protestors marched down Dallas streets spray-painting building and damaging other pieces of property. At the end of the protest Johnson doused the American Flag with kerosene and lit the flag on fire. He was arrested and charged with the Texas flag desecration law, Johnson spent a year in prison and was fined $2,000. The dissenting opinion of this Court is with Johnson because no one will riot or take offence, Texas is implying that freedom of speech is more important to some people more than others, and because

This essay is purposed for the evaluation of the provocative case, The State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, more commonly referred to as O.J. Simpson. On the 12th of June, 1994 the homicide of Nicole Simpson, O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife, occurred at her home. Reports of a body sprawled out the front of Nicole Simpson’s house were made through a 911 call. On arrival, police made the discovery of Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman’s dead bodies outside the house. The review of this investigation will be achieved through; Assessment of the key aspects of the process of investigation. Evaluation of the main investigative flaws made throughout the investigation. Identifying strategies to prevent these flaws from happening in

The case file recommendations for Jones, Smith and Thompson. The evidence against Jones on February 6, 2005 for the third possession of cocaine after the convictions in 1993 and 1994. Given the fact of being on good behavior as an informant to agreeing with have the under over agents meet the dealer. Jones will not be persecuted for any drug offenses that go on while being on an informant based on the two prior convictions for possession of cocaine, Jones would be tried in Federal Court but due to Jones cooperation the case will be filed in Wichita city and due to the change in charge to drug paraphernalia it is a minor criminal case that would take place in the Wichita Municipal Court ("Municipal Court", 2017).

With all of the information readily available on the internet and news broadcasts it is hard not to hear about the government food labeling controversy currently going on. There are people who want to label genetically modified, organic and natural foods and then there are some who want to do away with all of the labels for one reason or another. Government mandated food labels are a big deal right now because everyone has an opinion about it. A main cause of why this is such a big problem is because not all of the information out there on the subject is correct. Some labels can be misleading to consumers unless they know what regulations and standards are used in order to stamp certain words onto food packages. The biggest factor of the cause and the main focus to the solution here are the same thing: education.

It is necessary to look at these ethical issues pertaining to food labeling from a few different ethical perspectives to understand why the manufacturers deceive their customers. First, we will examine it from the manufacturer’s perspective; the Deontology theory. According to Business Ethics: A Managerial Approach, "Deontology maintains there are certain standards of human decency and respect for the worth of others that rule out treating them in certain ways" (Wicks, Freeman, Werhane, Martin, 2010, p. 6).