United States V. Bdo Seidman Case Study

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).

The Bank Secrecy Act requires businesses to keep records and file reports that are determined to have a high level of usefulness in criminal, tax, and regulatory matters. The documents filed by business under the Bank Secrecy Act requirements are greatly used by law enforcement agencies, both domestic and international to identify, detect and deter money laundering whether it is in extension of a criminal enterprise, terrorism, tax evasion or other illegal activity (Fritsch et al,

The decision carried out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education did wonders for the civil rights movement. By ending legal segregation and robbing it of its moral legitimacy, Brown showed that the law was on the side of black Americans. Political cartoons for as long as they have existed, have enabled the public and those less literate to stay informed on current cases and political events. With a (lower literacy rate) compared to those of their white American counterpart, these political cartoons were an excellent way to convey the importance of the Brown v. Board case in a visual rather than written way.

Frontiero v. Richardson case occurred in 1973, putting it in the middle of the second wave of feminism. This was a time of women’s marches and advocates for equal rights. Opposed to the first wave of feminism the second wave was more inclusive to women of color. Most likely because it was happening at the same time as the Civil rights and Chinco movements. Along with this, the second wave focused more on equality in the workplace and reproductive rights, whereas the first wave was more focused on voting rights. During this time period, the Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan was popularized encouraging women the challenge the “homemaking rules” and the National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) was formed. Along with this, the Equal Rights Act (ERA) was passed just one year before in 1972. Overall the 1960s and 70s were a time of great progression for equal rights.

Issue: Do warrantless arrest and no probable cause determination allow for Police to detain a suspect for an extended amount of time?

The sixth and fourteenth amendment both protect rights having to do with due process and right to counsel.

Facts: Antoine Jones (defendant), a nightclub owner in the District of Columbia was suspected for drug trafficking by the FBI and Metropolitan Police Department task force. As a joint task-force investigation, the FBI applied for a warrant that authorized the use of an electronic tacking device on the Jeep Grand Cherokee registered to Jones’s wife. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued the warrant, in which authorized an installation of the device on Jones’s vehicle within in the District of Columbia and and within 10 days of the issuance of the warrant. However, the government did not install the device on the undercarriage of Jones’s vehicle until the eleventh day

In the case State v. Ellis, Central State University RA discovered marijuana in the defendant’s dorm room while they were conducting an authorized, unannounced safety inspection. Campus police officers were then 19 notified and went to the room.While the campus police did not participate in the search, they were present in the room at the resident assistants’ invitation. The Ellis court concluded that the seizure of the marijuana was unconstitutional. It found that while the resident assistants’ search was authorized under the university’s policies and procedures, the later police entry into the room was unlawful because it was made without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. This case would be beneficial to Deary Jones because it

Rev. Yun offered advice and discussed spiritual matters with Ms. Borzoi; therefore, Rev. Yun was acting in her professional capacity as a senior pastor at BMCC.

Procedural Background: McCarty appealed his conviction and appealed to the Franklin County Courts of Appeals. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed this appeal for failing to present a constitutional question that was substantial. The District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed the defendant’s writ of habeas corpus. The United States Courts of Appeals Sixth Circuit had previously reversed this decision.

The Halbig vs. Burwell legal case came to the attention of the healthcare field and the Supreme Court because of a question of whether or not the IRS was overstepping its bounds by providing subsidies to people who were purchasing their insurance through the federal exchanges rather than through a state exchange. The legislation specifically addressed giving subsidies to people who purchased through exchanges set up by the state. It did not make provisions for subsidies for people whose state did not develop an exchange, therefore the argument was that the IRS overstepped the law by giving subsidies to people who purchased their insurance through the federal exchanges. The plaintiffs were arguing that it was not lawful for these people to be

Bound v. Smith was a North Carolina case that was filed by three (3) inmates against state administrators under section 1983,1. The facts of the case alleged that the inmates has been deprived of access to the courts in violation of their fourteen (14th) amendment rights by the state’s failure to provide legal research facilities (Shaw, 1978).

In the case of State v, Evans, he was a stalker who stalked Arnold. In the case their was a couple of incidences where he raned into her on purpose, so he was charged with stalking . In the case I will give the facts, issues, and court holding.

The US Supreme court wanted to deem what Native Americans were in the evolution of the United States of America, in just they really wanted to change the stance on tribal sovereignty that fit the US. Before set laws the only ways to deal with Native Americans were through wars, bullied negotiations and forced treaties to acquire all land. Treaties functioned as the most important documentation describing the relationship between Europeans and Natives. This continued until the courts began to bring specific meaning to these laws that were recognized through the courts of the US. A land title definition to the Europeans politics was that Indian’s had land to give and was for private individuals to receive. So there was a need to regulate these

I attend the United States VS. Miller case; this case was the last one in a series of multiple case that have taken overtime, and the judge would come to rule over the defendant on whether he is going to be staying in custody or be able to be on parole with an ankle monitor.