Officer Benda was driving through a apartment complex when he saw a man with his car on.…
Case Name: Michigan v. Tyler 436 U.S. 499(1978) Issue: Do the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment apply to Firefighters in an active Arson Investigation? Facts: In the case of Michigan v. Tyler the firefighters had had legal reason to initially enter the premises of Tyler’s Auction house on January 22, 1970, which was to extinguish the fire and surmise the start of said fire. Upon extinguishing flames during a preliminary search containers containing flammable liquid were found in the premises. These containers were seized for evidence. At the time of this initial investigation the atmosphere inside the structure was not conducive to an extensive investigation due to the presence of smoke and steam. At 4:00 am the firemen left, locking the premises upon exiting, and returned 4 hours later to continue investigation. The findings in these investigations led to another investigation by Sergeant Hoffman of the Michigan State Police on February 16. Armed with the findings of these investigations Tyler and Tompkins were charged, tried, and convicted of conspiracy to burn real property. Holdings: Upon appeal the Michigan Supreme Court overturned these convictions citing that all evidence retrieved after the initial exiting of the building was inadmissible due to a search of the premises without a warrant and ruled that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment apply to Firefighters and Investigators after the initial fire is extinguished. Opinion: I disagree with the Supreme Courts Findings in that if there is Probable Cause to believe that arson is a factor the investigation would only be a benefit to the property owner if not at fault and obtain enough evidence for conviction incase of arson. I am a firm believer that the Government should not be able to intrude on your property however, in a fire all means of investigation should be exhausted to determine the cause. Policy: The Policy in this case ultimately turned out to be does the authority investigating a fire whether it be…
Procedure-related accidents are caused by health care providers and include medication and fluid administration errors, improper application of external devices, and accidents related to improper performance of procedures such as dressing changes and or urinary catheter insertion. The incorrect transcription of a telephone order is a documentation accident.…
Facts: This lawsuit involves Dred Scott, an African American slave and his owner due to the passing of his previous owner Dr. Emerson, John F. A. Sanford. John F.A Sanford is the brother to the wife of Dr. Emerson. Dred Scott sued for his freedom in the Missouri Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis on April 6, 1846 . Dred Scott’s legal suit is for assault and false imprisonment: “A slave could be punished and kept as property, but a free person could not.”…
Spot check was for the purposes of checking licenses, insurance, mechanical fitness of cars sobriety of the drivers.…
Miranda V. Arizona is case where Mr. Ernesto Miranda who was suspected for kidnapping and rape of 18 years old woman. After Mr. Miranda is arrested and identified by victim, police interrogated him for two hours and he confessed the crime. However at time he signed a confession he was not aware of his rights. No one told him his rights to remain silent nor informed him that his statement would be used against him. Although, when he put his confession into written form, across the form was printed disclaimer that stated that suspect was confession is voluntary, with no threats or any promises for immunity and of full knowledge of legal rights. Also that he know that everything he wrote can be used against him.…
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Arizona police took him to the police station and interrogated him for two hours. After the interrogation, Mr. Miranda had confessed to the crimes, and provided officers with a written confession. Language at the top of the written confession stated that the confession was given freely and voluntarily without any threats or promises. In addition, the language stated that Mr. Miranda was fully aware of his legal rights. However, Mr. Miranda was not advised that he could remain silent and have an attorney present at the interrogation. Subsequently, the statement was entered into evidence at trial, and Mr. Miranda was convicted and sentenced to prison.…
Early in 1963, a 17 years old woman was kidnapped and raped in Phoenix, Arizona. The police investigated the case, and soon found and arrested a poor, and mentally disturbed man. The name of this man was Ernesto Miranda. Miranda was 23 years old when he was arrested. On March 13, 1963, Miranda was arrested based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping and the rape. After 2 police officers interrogated him for 2 hours, he signed a confession to the rape charge. The form he signed included the following statement:…
The Fifth Amendment which in 1934 the “which protects a defendant from being compelled to be a witness against themselves” (Wright, 2013). The self-incrimination portion of the Fifth Amendment was tested case of Miranda v. Arizona. This is the same case that leads to the Miranda Warning. The Miranda warning is an “explanation of rights that must be given before any custodial interrogation” so that self-incrimination will not be a factor. No person can be compelled to openly admit to a crime. They cannot try to pry information out of someone if they have not been read their rights or if they ask for their attorney. It is a different story though is someone just starts rambling on when they are not asked. “Suspects can reinitiate an interrogation by coming forward and indicating to police they wish to talk and are willing to waive their Miranda rights. If there is a break in detention, the police may reinitiate the interrogation after fourteen days” (Wright, 2013).…
Armarcion D. Henderson v. The United States of America, 11-9307 (2011) Retrieved from sblog.s3.amaxonaws.com Academic database < http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/11-9307-Henderson-v.-U.S.-Petition.pdf>…
The case of Miranda v. Arizona dealt with the question, “Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?” This case started in 1963, when Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for robbing $8 from a bank worker, and was charged with armed robbery. He already had a record for armed robbery, and a juvenile record including attempted rape, assault, and burglary. While Miranda was in police custody, he signed a written confession to the robbery, and also to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman 11 days before the robbery. After being convicted, Miranda’s lawyer appealed; on the basis that the defendant did not know he was protected from self-incrimination and therefore did not have to confess to his crimes.…
America is a young country in 1787. They have just won the war for their independence and are now under the new rule of the Articles of Confederation. This government is put in place to ensure that no one leader will have too much power. The newly formed nation still has the undesirable taste of monarchy in their mouth and are hesitant to enact some sort of executive power. The Articles rely on the committee’s to take care of that missing executive branch. Committee’s prove as weak during the period after the war as they did during war itself. The legislature and committee’s lack to enact major neccesties of a government proved it was time for a change. The authors make sure to point out the flaws of the articles of confederation.…
Facts: Bridget Fisher bought a house in 1989 by herself. She married Barry Jewell, and he helped her fix the house. They lived together on and off and then married in 1990. Later, they got divorced and Jewell moved into his friend's apartment. When Jewell found out that Fisher was seeing another man, he told his friend that he wanted to beat her boyfriends head with a 2 by 4 and cut his dick off.…
Henry, a resident of Nevada, sued Adam, a resident of Utah in the Federal Court in California. He sought $60,000 damages for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident that occurred in Los Angeles, California. Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction? No the federal court does not have jurisdiction over this case. In order for this case to fall within the guidelines of a federal suit it would have to qualify for diversity of citizenship. Diversity of citizenship exists in suits between (1) citizens of different states, (2) a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country, and (3) a state and citizens of another state. In this case since Henry is a resident of Nevada and Adam is a resident of Utah he can file the suit in California where the accident occurred but it…
On June 13th, 1966, the Supreme Court announced its 5-4 ruling in the Miranda v. Arizona case. This ruling established “Miranda Rights,” a standard police procedure which revolves around the principle that an arresting officer must advise a criminal suspect of his or her rights before being taken into custody and interrogated. The Court’s ruling in this landmark case effectively reinforced the importance of ensuring that the accused are aware of their Fifth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one can be forced to testify against himself; defendants in criminal cases can choose to remain silent, "pleading the Fifth," rather than offering testimony that might be used to convict them (Shmoop Editorial Team).…