Should The Greenhouse Where Defendant Was Seen Growing Marijuana?

7. The Taylors bought an ocean front lot in Oregon. The next year, Staley bought an ocean front lot south of the Taylors and built a home on it. Over the years, Staley often expressed concern that when the Taylors built their house, they could block her view. They said they would not. When they began planning their home, they asked Staley to submit a letter in support of a setback variance they sought. She said she would as long as her view wasn’t blocked. They again told her it wouldn’t be blocked. When the house was built, it partially blocked her view. She sued for breach of an

In Benters a reliable source told Detective J. Hastings there was an indoor marijuana growing operation at 527 Currin Road in Henderson, North Carolina, and Glenn Benters owned the property but was not living there. Benters at 662, 766 S.E.2d at 596 (2014). Hastings obtained a subpoena to look at the utility use for the property and discovered that it was indicative of a marijuana growing operation. Id. Hastings and Officer Joseph Ferguson traveled to Benters’ property and saw tools used for marijuana growing outside the premises. Id. After that observation, they conducted a knock and talk on the back door. Id. at 662, 766 S.E.2d at 596-597 (2014). After no answer, Ferguson walked to a building where music was playing and smelled

Based on his training Detective Schultz knew marijuana growers frequently used greenhouses, fencing, or other means to obscure the view of the illegal activities to avoid arrest. Undeterred with his finding on the ground, Detective Schultz along with Narcotics Agent R. Rodriguez chartered an airplane and flew over the residence at 2085 Clark Avenue. From an altitude of one thousand feet, both could visually see marijuana plants growing in the back yard behind the tall fence (figure 2). Using their testimony and photographs taken from

If marijuana is to be grown inside it must have some source of intense ultraviolet light to aid it. Haas did indeed locate a high heat source in Kyllo’s home with the Agema 210 and noted that Kyllo’s home “showed much warmer” than the other two houses in the triplex (Find Law). This indicated the presence of lights used to grow marijuana. This information was forwarded to William Elliot, an agent of the United States Bureau of Land Management. Elliot had already subpoenaed Kyllo’s utility records as Kyllo was already under investigation for the production of marijuana. With the information gathered by the use of the Agema 210, Elliot “inferred” that the high levels of heat emission indicated the presence of high intensity lights used to grow marijuana indoors (Find Law). Elliot presented this information to a judge and was issued a search warrant. In searching Kyllo’s home the Bureau of Land Management found more than one hundred marijuana plants, weapons and drug paraphernalia. Kyllo was then indicted for manufacturing marijuana and filed a motion to suppress the evidence on the grounds that it was obtained illegally in accordance with the 4th Amendment. The district court denied Kyllo’s motion to suppress and he entered into a conditional guilty plea. Kyllo was sentenced to prison for 63 months. Kyllo appealed the denial of the suppression of motion, challenging the warrantless scan of his

Case Facts: Roy Caballes was stopped for speeding by an Illinois state trooper Daniel Gillette. During the traffic stop another state trooper Craig Graham of the Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, overheard the stop on the radio and showed up to the scene with a narcotics detection dog. While the first trooper was writing Roy Caballes a warning ticket for speeding the second trooper walked around Roy’s car with the narcotics detection dog. The dog alerted that it had detected narcotics at the rear end of the car which subsequently led to the state troopers searching the trunk of the car. Upon searching the trunk of the car the state troopers found a large quantity of marijuana which consequently led to the arrest of Roy Caballes. The entire incident lasted no longer than 10 minutes. Roy Caballes was convicted of a narcotics offence and was sentenced to 12 years in prison and ordered to pay a $256,136 fine.

Under ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 13-3401 and 13-3405, did Jess Pepper knowingly possess marijuana for sale when officers found seventy pounds of marijuana in the lining of the back seat of her Prius?

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the undersigned, Elise Smith, Esquire, did prepare Defendants, Lewis E. Olson and Albert Dobiash's Interrogatories to answer.

The plaintiff’s argument to why the third condition did not meet stated that on previous occasions Foster High School charged the public to hold events on the property. Therefore, the plaintiff states that because the school district has charged the public before to use the recreational space that it is not immune from the liability on the injury on the property.

Case Briefing #2 Vizcaino v. US Dist. Court for WD of Wash., 173 F. 3d 713 (9th Cir.1999)

Facts: At a New Jersey High School, a fourteen year old girl and her companions was caught in the bathroom smoking cigarettes by a teacher. The girls were taking to the Principal’s office. In response to the Vice Principal’s questioning, the girls denied that they had been smoking. Upon demanding to see the girl’s purse, he found a pack of cigarettes and then noticed a rolling paper associated with marijuana. After a thorough search, the Vice Principal found some marijuana, a pipe, plastic bags, and other items associated with drug dealing. Delinquent proceedings were

Like the defendant in Moore, Herrera is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law in this action, because she could not have known or realized that the rock towers on her property would pose an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury to Maria. Herrera’s private property is located in a remote location in Arizona where she allows adults to view her land art by appointment only. It is reasonably understandable that Herrera does not like uninvited or unwanted individuals on her property at anytime. Moreover, since the land art was for adults only to view, she never allowed children on her property to view her land art. As a result, no injuries were ever reported from the adults who visited and viewed her land art.

At approximately 1:40pm on Saturday March 26, 2016, UCPD Officer Jonathan Santiago was on the first floor of Shippee Hall and smelled marijuana coming from Shippee 132B. Hall Director on Duty, Robin Bogen, arrived to the scene at around 1:42pm. After the arrival of a second UCPD officer at approximately 1:45pm, Officer Santiago knocked on the door of Shippee 132B to speak with Resident Ross Rackin regarding the strong smell of marijuana that was coming from the room. Following the conversation, Officer Santiago issued Resident Rackin an infraction for drug paraphernalia. At the conclusion of the incident, Hall Director Bogen and Resident Assistant Emily Cassidy introduced themselves to Resident Rackin. Resident Rackin appeared to be agitated

Fisher, the court stated that the subdivision streets were highways. Id. at 77. In the Covert case, the plaintiff was found to have been driving on a road that had state issued signage. Id. at 73. The court in the Covert case used the state issued signage to show that the streets were intended to be accessible by the public, this was important because roads that are not intended for the public to drive on do not require state issued signage. Id. The roads in the Covert case had mail delivered to them by the mail carrier by utilization of the roads. Id. The court in the Covert case reasoned that mail delivery vehicles utilizing the roads was important because a road that is utilized by the mail carrier can also be utilized by the public. Id. In Covert, public traffic was allowed entry and utilization to the subdivision roads. Id. The court reasoned that entry and utilization by public traffic was important because public entry and utilization shows that there was nothing restricting people from using the subdivision streets as a thoroughfare. Id. Therefore, the court decided that the plaintiff was driving on a highway because the public had free access and consistent usage. Id. at

In Stephen King’s novel Under the Dome, one of the social issues that arises is drug abuse. The novel’s antagonist, James “Big Jim” Rennie, is the town’s second selectman and owner of a used-car dealership. What nobody knows is he also runs the biggest meth operation on the east coast. One of his co-conspirators is a man named Phil “Chef” Bushey. They call him the “Chef” because he “cooks” the meth. Various other characters in the novel are depicted taking drugs, including Phil’s wife, Sammy, who also sells marijuana on the side. This leads us to the social issue of marijuana. Marijuana is a controversial subject in today’s society, and it’s also the topic of this essay. Currently twenty-three states have legalized marijuana in some form. People

Elliott Watson was arrested for the possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute said illegal drug. Elliott Watson was stopped by Officer Timothy Johnson because of faulty mechanical problems of Elliot Watson’s vehicle, which was sputtering and stalling out, and the vehicle also fit the description of a vehicle, a sports coupe, that had earlier, was used to kidnap a three year old young girl, Wanda Jones,