The City of Dallas the appellant terminated Ronald Hamilton the appellee for violation of the public trust and insubordination, stemming from an original arrest of Hamilton for Organized Crime in gambling activities. Upon termination, Hamilton requested a Civil Service Trial for wrongful termination. The trial board ruled that Hamilton did violate the City of Dallas Personnel Rules of insubordination and disregard of public department rules. The trial board also found that Hamilton did not violate Department Rules relating to conduct unbecoming a member of the department and conduct resulting in justified unfavorable criticism. The trial board reviewed the correctness of the disciplinary action on the part of the city, which concluded in the
During the morning fall hours of November 7th, 2013 within the minute desolate rural community of Cheyenne Wells, Colorado as entered the historic three story Victorian style building in which the 15th District Court of Cheyenne County which was playing host to several criminal court cases according to the court docket. The county happens to be the sixth least densely populated county within the state of Colorado in which provided a shocking revelation as the vastly large docket of criminal offenses in which was scheduled to be heard this morning. In order to access the courtrooms on would began by walking to the second floor of the county building building were Sheriff Ken Putnam was found standing outside the courtroom next to a metal detector. Sheriff Putnam was acting as the court security officer.
Facts: Albert Florence was arrested for an outdated warrant. Upon his arrest he was taken to the Burlington County Detention Center where he was subject to a strip search. He remained there for six days and then was transferred to the Essex county facility where he was subjected to another strip search and a visual body cavity search. Florence contends that these searches violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
The defendant Gary Ewing was a multiple offender of several crimes from grand theft auto to drug possession.. On December 9, 1993, Ewing was arrested on the premises of a apartment complex for trespassing and lying to a police officer. After his conviction of first-degree robbery and three counts of residential burglary,Ewing was sentenced to nine years and eight months in prison. On parole from a nine year sentence he entered into El Segundo golf course store empty handed but left with a pants leg full of merchandise. After the police was notified by the the store employee Ewing was arrested before even leaving the premises. When arrested three golf clubs each priced at $399 was confiscated from him so he was convicted of one count of felony grand theft of personal property in excess of $400. The trial court found as a newly convicted felon with two or more “serious” or “violent” felony convictions in his past, Ewing was sentenced to 25 years to life. In examining Ewing 's claim that his sentence is grossly disproportionate, the gravity of the offense must be compared to the harshness of the penalty.. The California Supreme Court has noted that crime 's seriousness in the context of
In the case of Sibron versus New York was an important case for the United States Constitution. Law enforcement officer, Anthony Martinez, observed Nelson Sibron for several hours, while talking to several narcotics addicts. Officer Anthony Martinez told Sibron that he is after one thing and then Sibron reach into his pocket, which he pulled out several heroin envelopes. Sibron was arrested and charged for drug trafficking. Sibron stated that his constitutional rights was violated, when he was stop and frisk search for no probable cause. The Criminal Court of New York City denied Sibron’s motion, but Sibron appealed to the court decision. The United States Supreme Court review Sibron’s case along with Peters versus New York. John Peters was
No. The Court’s ruling was 7-0 in favor of the mayor and city council of Baltimore.
* The charges against Williams included that she lied to investigators, tyrannical behavior, especially in running her drug court. Williams had imposed indefinite jail terms on drug defendants, deprived some of contact with their lawyers and jailed one man 14 days for questioning a positive drug test. The commission also accused Williams of giving favorable treatment to family members of friends and those of high social standing. She was also accused of nepotism for allowing family members to practice before her. In one case, Williams warned parties they would be subject to contempt should they fail to pay a $1000 fee to her daughter within 30 days. Other charges include ordering that a
On November 18, 2011, charges were brought against Antoine Jones for possession of drug trafficking. The case was held by the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 10-1259, Citation 565 U.S 132 s. Ct. 945, 181 L. Ed 2d 911; United States, petitioner v. Antoine Jones. All 9 parties of the Supreme Court were present for the trial as well as the plaintiffs which were the law enforcements along with Deputy Michael R. Dreeben and the defendant Antoine Jones. Each party had a chance to deliberate their opinions and stating their case against Antoine Jones. This case was not only brought into court for Mr. Jones’s cocaine distribution but for authorities violating Antoine Jones Fourth Amendment rights by planting a global positioning system on
Jeffrey Heffernan, who worked as a cop in Paterson, New Jersey, was demoted, or given a lower rank, from detective to a foot post in 2005 by the police chief. When an election for mayor was held, Joey Torres ran against Lawrence Spagnola. Because Heffernan’s mother was bedridden and her first campaign yard sign got stolen, Heffernan helped his mother pick up another one. Another police officer, serving as Torres’s bodyguard, saw Heffernan with a Spagnola yard sign. Immediately, the news spread to Paterson Police Department, where Torres had the support of the head police chief. As a result, Heffernan was degraded from detective to foot patrol. Later, he sued the department for demoting him. He claims that he just helped his mother pick up a yard sign. In 2009 Heffernan won a reward of $105,000. However, the judge later changed his decision. This U.S. Court of Appeals established a decision, which was in favor of Paterson, in January 2015. The dispute has been carried to the Supreme Court, and Heffernan’s lawyers are asking the Supreme Court to invalidate the U.S. Court of Appeals’s decision. By the end of June, the Supreme Court may have their decision. This happened mainly because of a misinterpretation between the head chief and Heffernan.
This memo is regarding Hamilton Corporation and the fraud that occurred. When people make decisions they don’t always do it with the right mindset. There are limitations in our judgment processes and we can identify methods to mitigate bias and improve judgment (KPMG Judgment Framework). The four common tendencies that cause limitations in our judgment processes are, availability, confirmation, overconfidence, and anchoring. In this memo I will explain each of the four tendencies, talk about which tendency I believe to have manifested in the Hamilton case, clarify issues relating to auditing the warranty reserve and describe the alternatives that should be considered in auditing the warranty reserve, and finally provide factors that
First off the does seem that the sheriff was in the wrong in the demotion of the deputy from both a legal and a subsequent policy violation. It appears that the sheriff may have violated the deputies first amendment rights, although a preexisting department policy forbidding holding or running for office by the deputy may protect the sheriff from liability in this instance. What would have been a better scenario is that the sheriffs department had and independent inquiry on this matter to see if the deputy violated any law or internal policy, however the sheriff being an elected official simply looks as though he is firing the deputy out of retribution thus possibly weakening his his public image. Not only does it seem that the sheriff may have violated the deputies first amendment rights but may have also violated his freedom of religion, not only this but the United States is a secularist democracy with very touted ideals of the separation of both the church and state from one another.
Hurricane Katrina destroyed the New Orleans system of courts, allowing the removal of all checks and balances. The factual narrative of Zeitoun, a Syrian American businessman, concerning his arrest one week after hurricane Katrina as recounted in Dave Eggers Zeitoun. His story, one of many, describes what happens when law enforcement and government ignore constitutional protections. One year after Katrina Brandon L. Garrett and Tania Tetlow’s article, Criminal Justice Collapse: The Constitution After Hurricane Katrina published in the Duke Law Journal, explains what happened. Two years after Katrina, Caterina Gouvis Roman, Seri Irazola, and Jenny W.L. Osborne’s research in After Katrina Washed away? Justice in New Orleans published by the Urban Institute, reviews the then current state of the New Orleans legal system and finds the continuation of the same problems. In Zeitoun’s case, without oversight, law enforcement denied him access to communication, counsel or due process.
Power is something that everyone wants. People around the world are trying to fight for power like dictators in communist and fascist countries and they do not care if others get injured. As we see in Macbeth, he hurt people so he can be king. Macbeth turned into a selfish lunatic from a loyal and honorable person.
In the article “It’s Not Climate Change-It’s Everything Change,” the author Margaret Atwood, starts of by talking about three different pictures. The first one being “The future without oil,” the second, “The future without oil arrives very quickly,” and the third, “Some countries plan for the future of diminished oil, some don’t have any, or don’t need any.” The first picture says to imagine driving around in our in vehicles fueled by hydrogen. Our goods will be coming to us by solar and sail driven ship, and trains and bicycles will become popular again. People start eating locally and start growing vegetables in their yards. Water is having to be saved and low draw lightbulbs are being used because incandescent have been banned. Also the slogan “Heat yourself, not the room” is no longer a slogan, it’s the way we all live now. The air conditioning systems no longer exist so during summer, there will not be huge amounts of power being used. Still imagining, the author discusses what will be wearing and what we will eat. Cotton will be consider too expensive, so recycled tinfoil and plastic will be used for clothing. The idea of obesity will no longer be a problem, and diet plans will be mandatory. This “picture one” is liked by the author because it’s comforting and says it might come true. The second picture the author discuses is “suppose the future without oil arrives very quickly.” Very sudden, there would be no cars, no planes, a few trains, and some bicycles. Water
When Obama was sworn into presidency he implemented many new healthcare initiatives in order to reform the quality of care and strive forward towards having healthcare be available to everyone. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a significant effort to expand healthcare to all citizens, but the part of the act that is not as well known is the proposal of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). Accountable Care Organizations are an initiative for providing better, more universal healthcare throughout all stages of life, especially focusing on the care of Medicare beneficiaries. An Accountable Care Organization is a network of doctors, nurses, hospitals, and health care providers that all agree to give coordinated care to Medicare patients by having responsibility of the cost and quality of patient care. The goal of these organizations is to have a group of people that all know the patient’s history and, therefore, through transitions the patient is able to receive quicker and higher quality of care for less cost of both the patient and provider. The effectiveness of Accountable Care Organizations depends upon the cost-effectiveness, professionals voluntarily giving care, and, most importantly, the way in which it affects patient care.
It dismissed the claims against the defendants as being the mayor and Officer Hymon and the Police Department as being the director for lack of evidence. Hymon's actions were then concluded to being constitutional by being under the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted accordingly to the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals then reversed and remanded. It reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only if actions are reasonable. In this case the actions were found not to be reasonable. Officers cannot use deadly force unless they have probable cause that the suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or has committed a felony.