Roberts V. Careflite Case Summary

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

Extreme sumarization of r v brown( key point of arguments used by the five judges)

Today I was able to have a quick interview with the honorable Mrs.Salvarez. I asked her a few questions about what she does in the government and if she could clarify some things.

In the R. v. Stinchcombe case, a lawyer was charged with breach of trust, theft and fraud. His former secretary was a Crown witness at the opening of the investigation. She provided relevant evidence towards the defence. Former to trial, she was interviewed by an RCMP officer and a tape‑recorded statement was taken. Far along during the progress of the trial, she again was interviewed by a police officer with a written statement taken. The defence counsel was notified of the occurrence but not of the statements. His request for a disclosure was declined. However, throughout the trial, the defence counsel acknowledge without a doubt that the witness would not be called by the Crown and required an order that the witness be called or that the Crown disclose the main statements to the defence. The trial continued and the accused was found guilty of breach of trust and fraud. Conditional stays were entered with respect to the theft counts. The

We were able to locate and review the lawsuit Robert Coleman v CDCR, et al. In the complaint the plaintiff alleges that he was moved from a bunk bed cell to a side by side cell, which he claims seriously affected his mental health disorder (schizophrenia). The inmate states that when he informed the C/O that he could not stay in the side by side cell the C/O retaliated against him by placing the inmate in a small cage that he had to stand in for approximately seven hours. According to the inmate, his medical disability prohibits him from standing for long periods of time and subsequently experienced right knee pain and swelling. The inmate also indicates that his placement in a modified program violated his rights against lack of yard time

The case R.v. Flett, 2013 the defence counsel was Darren M. Sawchuk who represented the accused, Lulonda Lynn Flett and for the Crown Elizabeth Thomson represented the Her Queen The Majesty, Judgement was delivered on June 13 2013. Lulonda Lynn Flett, 41 went to a rooming house located at 288 Austin Street, Winnipeg on July 16th 2011 and set fire to a couch on the front porch. She was angry at her boyfriend’s mother for calling the police as a result of the fight she had with him, she also blamed her because of an arrest warrant, for the fight she had with her boyfriend's sister Lynette. Also Ms. Flett had said that she would “burn the house down” which she said in a fit of uncontrollable anger when she was drunk. Firefighters brought six people out of the

The case dealt with Jeff Quon, a police sergeant at the Ontario Police Department who was issued a pager in October of 2001 because of his work on the the department 's SWAT Team. Quon allegedly went over his allotted number of text messages on his department issued pager a repeated number of times, which resulted in an additional fee that Quon paid. The department took notice of the high number of messages and decided to look into the matter to see if the limit was set too low and to make sure the messages being sent on the company pagers were work related. During their review of the transcripts they found many personal messages, which resulted in Quon being reprimanded by the department. Quon felt the actions of his workplace were unfair on the basis of the Fourth Amendment and brought action against the city. It is important to note that before the pagers were issued to employees, a Computer Policy was announced for every employee that stated the department “reserves the right to monitor and log all network activity including e-mail and Internet use, with or without notice [and] users should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources”. The trial judge originally believed that Quon was right to expect the messages he sent using the pager owned by his workplace were going to be kept private. However, the judge eventually determined at the trial that the police department

The case filed by NLRB was between the American Medical Response of Connecticut in New Haven and one of their employees called Mrs. Dawnmarie. Upon verbal disagreement with her supervisor, Mrs. Dawnmarie posted a negative remark on her private facebook wall about the supervisor. The remark attracted comments from her staff mates. On reporting to work the following day, she was suspended and later fired. The company argued that her act was a violation of their internet policy by criticizing her overseer online.

The case filed by NLRB was between the American Medical Response of Connecticut in New Haven and one of their employees called Mrs. Dawn. Upon verbal disagreement with her supervisor, Mrs. Dawn posted a negative remark on her private facebook wall about the supervisor. The remark attracted comments from her staff mates. On reporting to work the following day, she was suspended and later fired. The company argued that her act was a violation of their internet policy by criticizing her overseer online.

The Dred Scott Decision was a famous Supreme Court case deciding over the rule of slavery in newly discovered territory. The decision occurred in 1857 and affirmed that slaveholders should have the right to take their slaves to the west . The Decision took three attempts to finally reach a decision of whether an African American living in recently developed land should be free or not. Below I will discuss the life of Dred Scott, the Scott v. Emerson Case, and the Scott v. Sandford Case, and what happened to slavery in the proceeding decades.

The case of Dred Scott v. Sanford depicts how a Black-American struggles for his right to become a free man. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was ignored in the case. On the other had the case of Korematsu v. United States shows a clear violation of amendments in the U.S constitution. The citizenship of Japanese Americans is questioned in the case. By analyzing the decision made in the cases of Dred Scott and Korematsu, were a clear violation of U.S constitution. This is significant because Dred Scott and Korematsu demonstrated the essence of racial biasness.

Employees started to exchange their frustration about Cruz-Moore’s criticism. A director of HUB soon followed up with the Facebook post. Cruz-Moore commented on Cole-Rivera’s post “stop with your lies about me”, She then brought the entire Facebook exchange to the executive director’s attention (O'Brien, C. N. 2013). The employees who were involved were terminated for bulling and harassment of Cruz-Moore. Cruz-Moore had suffered a heart attack as a result of this incident. The NLRB ruled that HUB violated the NLRA by discharging the five employees, because the employees were engaged in protected concerted activities for the “purpose of mutual aid or protection” under Section 7.167 (O'Brien, C. N. 2013). Employers were ordered to reinstate employees with back pay because the discharges were motivated by the employee’s protected concerted activity.

he Supreme Court ruled that based off their interpretation of R. V. Mann, 2004 SCC 52 that a search can not be deemed reasonable based off “...a vague concern for safety”, but rather “ ...reasonable and specific inferences drawn from the known facts of the situation”. Taking this into consideration, as well as, the circumstances surrounding the MacDonald case, the SCC concluded that the decision to slightly push the door open was a reasonable search because,. the SCC felt that since the duty of an officer is to protect and preserve public safety; in accordance with the fact that when officers at work are faced with a “...realistic risk of imminent harm”, which the judge feels was indisputably present, based of the following facts: “ 1. Mr. MacDonald had his hand behind his leg and was clearly holding an object; 2. “what he was holding was “black and shiny” and therefore could have been a weapon; and” 3. “when twice asked what he had behind his back, he refused to answer or to provide any explanation.” ,that his search was well within the parameters of the law as an officer may take reasonable action to ensure safety and asses the situation, and in this case, only the required amount of intrusion to ensure safety was taken, thus the

The purpose of this literary review is to enlighten my viewers of the importance of the ethical idea of companies crossing the lines of business with your personal life, when involving social media accounts. Most of my research has operated from the ATU library using the find it tool. Furthermost, the researched information use was from peer-reviewed research journal. I will discuss includes social media cons in the work environment, if it is ethical to get fired over a post, and laws that protect both parties. Social media includes an assortment of electronic communications—most commonly networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Myspace, Pinterest, Instagram, and the likes thereof. Social media also covers all forms of blogs, including Twitter (a micro-blog), wikis, online journals, diaries, personal newsletters, and World of Warfare and YouTube also are included under the umbrella term of social media (Lieber 2011).

The article Why Asking for a Job Applicant’s Facebook Password Is Fair Game by Alfred Edmond Jr. brings up a controversial topic that has been gaining more and more attention. The topic this article talks about is whether it is fair for an employer to ask for an applicants password. Edmond is known for being on MSNBC’s Your Business, where he explained to many surprised viewers that he believes the answer to this question is yes.