In all of these cases it is important to note that even though these findings were not based upon statute or law set down by Congress, the idea of these rulings must have been in the mind of the Congress upon the establishment of the federal courts in 1789. The federal courts therefore, in the mind of Congress, were bound by the common law of the state in which the court resided.
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.
An example of racial profiling that involves both Stop-and-Frisk and DWB is the incident behind Whren v. United States. The incident behind the case involved two black men, Michael Whren and James Lester Brown, in Washington D.C. who were driving a truck through a high drug area. An unmarked police car with two officers pulled up next to the truck that was stopped at a stop sign for an unreasonable amount of time and then sped away at a high speed. The police officers then pulled them over and saw a clear plastic bag. Under the suspicion that it was drugs, they searched the car and ended up finding a substantial amount of drugs. The decision of Whren v. United States says that if a police officer has a reasonable suspicion, he can stop the car for that reason alone. There is no need for a traffic offense because ‘driving suspiciously’ is enough to warrant a stop. While yes, they did see the plastic bag and that was the caused for the search, they stopped them because they were African American men in a high drug area and drove suspiciously. There is no saying that if they were two white men that they would not have been pulled over as well, however, if they were two black men not in a high drug area and drove suspiciously they would have still been more likely to be pulled over than two white men. This shows the underlying problem is not that the law directly discriminates, it’s that the police who enforce and the society who follows it that have biases and stereotypes that
In 1886 the US Supreme Court declared that states could not regulate commerce that went beyond their boundaries in the Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific R.R. versus Illinois case. The decision provided the basis for the formation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887. The Interstate Commerce Commission was a regulatory agency in the united states. Its purpose was to regulate railroads to ensure fair rates, to regulate rate discrimination and to regulate other aspects of common carriers, including interstate bus lines and telephone companies.
In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) the Supreme Court held that a law requiring children to
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.
expressed or inappropriate without the regard to the speaker’s intended meanings is not protected in the First Amendment. Threats must be true in order to be legally actionable. A reasonable person must foresee that the statement would be interpreted by the recipient as a serious expression of intent to carry out the threat to cause harm. For example, the U.S. v. Voneida case. A university student was convicted of posting threats to others on a social media page two days after the shootings at Virginia Tech. The student had posted several statements and pictures to his Myspace page, including a number of violent statements, such as, “Someday I’ll make the Virginia Tech incident look like a trip to an amusement park,” and captioning a posting,
On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a debtor may not void, or “strip off,” a wholly underwater second lien in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. In doing so, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit’s affirmation of a decision from the Middle District of Florida, which had granted the debtors' motions to void the underwater second liens.
In this article about the U.S. vs. Jones cases is about a police who had put a GPS on Jones jeep to track down his movement. The officer in this case found that Jones had in store of illegal drugs and money in a safe house and arrested Jones. Although Jones may have in possession of illegal drugs the officer had violated Jones fourth amendment right of unreasonable search and seizure that had violated Jones privacy by implanting a GPS on his jeep without a warrant. The court found out that the officer did have a warrant but it was already past the expires date and question the use of technology that could easily violated the constitutional rights. In result the court threw out Jones's crimes and claim that officers are not allowed to use any
The limitations of first amendment protections are pretty clearly defined in a huge body of case law ranging from chief justice Holmes, “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater” ruling in Schenk vs US in 1919 to the Snyder vs Phelps in 2015 , upholding the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to make homophobic statements in public.
In the case Weeks vs. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), the main issue of the case revolves around the 'plaintiff in error', defendant Fremont Weeks, who worked was employed by an express company. Weeks was accused of, "the use of the mails for the purpose of transporting certain coupons or tickets representing chances or shares in a lottery or gift enterprise, in violation of § 213 of the Criminal Code." Fermont Weeks was arrested by officers in which they had no warrant and no probable cause to arrest him. Local law enforcement officers went on to search Mr. Weeks residence without proper paperwork. After talking to a neighbor, the police discovered a spare key and those officers searched his residence without cause. While this case was
Mr. and Mrs. Cesarini discovered in 1964, when cleaning a piano they acquired at an auction in 1957 for $15.00; old money that they converted to new money in the amount of $4,467.00.
In Walder v United States, Walder has stated that he had never “purchased, sold, or sent” drugs and that the government or police never entered his home to seize drugs. However, during cross examination of a defense witness, it was discovered that Walder had been indicted for the purchase of narcotics. However, Walders pre
PIECE OF AMERICA, Appellant (Defendant below), v. GRAY LOON OUTDOOR MARKETING GROUP, INC., Appellee (Plaintiff below).
1) Identify audit procedures that, if employed by Ernst & Whinney during the 1981 USSC audit, might have detected the overstatement of the leased and loaned assets account that resulted from the improper accounting for asset retirements.