Riggins V. Nevada Case Study

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.

The Nevada constitution is the document that governs the citizens of the state of Nevada. In general, state constitutions are usually much longer than the United States constitution and Nevada’s constitution, which was sanctioned in 1864, is one of the state constitutions that fall into that category. When comparing the two, Nevada’s constitution is just short of being twice the length of the United States constitution, but Nevada is still shorter than the constitution of twenty-six other states. The reason Nevada’s constitution has such length is because of the in-depth parts it contains, which are protracted from the provisions of the United States constitution. The reason for Nevada’s constitution having such depth is because of the

The conclusion had is there is no one solution for all of these individual cases however the author does state “The goal is to reach a balance between the rights of the patient to treatment and the responsibility to ensure public safety. The balance between patients’ rights, the right to treatment, and public safety is taken into account with the “treatment years” approach.” (Melamed). This balance between punishment and treatment will largely depend on the severity of the crime committed, and differ from case to case. The term “treatment years” refers to the duration of time spent with medical personnel helping subdue the condition expressed by the patient before they are deemed ready to be a part of society once more. The implication of juries that are more informed on the topics of mental health and are able to view that in the context of sentencing could also benefit a suitable and more understanding sentencing of jail and treatment time. The context of murder with punishment and treatment is more difficult to find a balance with than other less severe crimes. The perpetrator has shown the ability to commit the worst crime imaginable and has demonstrated their danger to society and capability to damage lives. With this taken into account punishment for the perpetrator needs to be

On the fourth of July in 1776 the United States became an independent nation. At that point in time, the foundation for a formal legal system was put into place. One of the oldest sources of law is the common law, which dates back to the colonial days. In the case of Davis v. Baugh, the common law rule was used in the first court trial. Common law refers back to precedent cases of similar disputes and assists the judge in making a decision after comparing both cases. Utilizing this ruling to resolve disputes in court is very helpful because it provides uniformity in court. This rule also provides an expectation of what the verdict will be based off the prior cases. Most importantly, common law allows the judge to remain neutral without the implication of personal bias on each case (Meiners, 2012, pp. 9-10).

There are substantial differences between the United States and Nevada Constitutions to include its length, how their judges interpret law, the powers of their leaders, their forms of democracy, their meeting mandates and their system of selecting judges.

Terry v. Ohio is an important case in law enforcement. What did the Court say in this case, and why is it important?

In the case of Lobato v. the State of Nevada, it is hard to see how someone could be convicted with evidence that does not make very much sense at all. My groups responsibility was to cover the prosecution side and five pieces of evidence of the case using the information from the news article by Joshua Longobardy titled, “Kirsten Blaise Lobato is accused in a gruesome slaying. Did she do it?”. Upon the detective arriving to the scene of the crime, they removed the debris that covered the body from complete view. This debris included a full sheet of cardboard with a bloody footprint on it and a clear plastic bag wrapped around the groin region. Once this was removed it was discovered that the penis had been sliced off from the base, as well as six of his teeth were found near his body. After several days they were able to identify the man as Duran Bailey, a 44-year-old black male. Another piece of evidence recovered at first with Baileys personal belongings was a piece of chewed gum. When the detectives called Lobato in for questioning, she gave them a statement of how she pulled a knife on a man who tried to attack her. This statement however was for a completely different altercation than what the police were questioning for. Other evidence that came into question were the tire impressions near the entrance of the enclosure, fingerprints lifted from the dumpster, and a foreign piece of hair on Baileys groin region. The argument being made from

In both the United States and Nevada, the Supreme Court is the highest level in the Judicial Branch with the Federal Supreme Court making decisions that affect the entire nation. Supreme Court Justices in Nevada serve only a six-year term and do not have term limits. Although, this has always been the case for the Nevada Judiciary branch, many individuals felt that it was time for a change and attempted to ratify a new appointment system. Each state within the United States has its own Constitution and while the purpose of this document has evolved, its overall function has remained the same; to establish rules and regulation that best represent the people of Nevada.

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

My concerns about the case of Hiibel v. the State of Nevada was first, his daughter safety. The second, difficult not obeying the law. There is a saying, to obey is better than sacrifice. Third, if the police officers dispatched to a wrong location, it causes such events. Proper information given to the officers during an emergency will help. Individuals who are not responding, it may be a chance of getting arrested, detained and charged. An example, Sept 4, 2014, in Missouri a man strolling without any suspicion of crime was tackled and arrested for not identify himself. A report by PINAC media confirmed the man detained cost $500 for bail. These cases have their positive and negative future results in the nation.

Even If This Court Was To Find That Ms. Brie’s Authority to Consent Was Ambiguous, This Court Must Still Find that the District Court Properly Denied the Defendant-Appellant’s Motion.

The court held that the expert medical witness testimony regarding the Herbel Study, his own experiences as a physician, and the medical record of the defendant did not provide enough evidence to justify the forced medication of the defendant even though all three concerned patients with delusional disorders. Watson, 793 F.3d at 428. The court found that the fourteen year-old Herbel study was inherently flawed due to its design and did not justify the forced medication of the defendant because the information provided about its subjects was neither similar enough nor specific enough to the situation of the defendant at hand. Id. at 426. Similarly, the court faulted the government’s reliance on the personal experiences of the witness because the information provided regarding his patients was not specific enough to the defendant’s situation. In particular, the testimony did not indicate that the previously treated patients had delusions that were “meaningfully similar in nature and persistence” to those of the defendants. The medical record of the defendant was also inadequate because although it reported that he had previously been given the, it only indicated that he had been treated and released. Id. at

Under Colorado case law, any covenant not to compete, which restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor for any employer shall be void, unless the agreement fits into one of four statutory exceptions, such as the employee qualifying as executive and management personnel. If the agreement fits into one of the four exceptions it must be deemed reasonable in scope and duration, to be enforceable. Is the non-compete Mr. Marin signed, reasonable in scope and duration when he is not allowed to work for a period of two years in the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, Utah, or Kansas in directly or indirectly entering into the employ of, or rendering any service to, any person, partnership, association, corporation, or other entity engaged in cultivating cannabis; processing, extracting, or manufacturing cannabis concentrates, edibles, or other products; or dispensing medical or recreational cannabis.

The Supreme Court case of Gibbons v. Ogden was one of the many cases dealing with the compelling issue of Federalism (the separation of power between the Federal Government and the states.) It is one of the more disputable cases in determining whether the government exceeded their bounds or if they were simply following the constitution and their delegated powers.

According to the Terry v. Ohio case the police officer noticed John W. Terry speaking to another person on a street corner while repeatedly walking up and down the same exact street. The two men would from time to time peak into a store window and then go back to speaking to one another again. The two men also spoke to a third man who they would ultimately follow up the street. The police officer assumed that John Terry and other two men were “casing” this particular store for a possible robbery. The officer made the decision to approach the men to begin questioning them, and given the nature of their activities the officer decided to carry out a swift search of the men before interrogative them. After a hasty inspection of John Terry, he produced