In the case of State v. Rounds‚ the defense challenges the conduct of Officer Oliver Towns and the evidence his conduct yielded. The defense wages their action on three major cases‚ all of which apply‚ but none in the way cited: Riley V. California‚ 573 U.S. ____ (2014)‚ Wong Sun v. United States‚ 371 U.S. 471‚ (1963) and Carroll v United States‚ 267 U.S. 132 (1925). This case can be narrowed down to three stages: the stop‚ the search and the seizure. All of which‚ when performed‚ obeyed the limits
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution United States
promises to appear at court on a fixed date and pay a certain sum‚ a surety if the promise is broken. The granting of bail may be conditional upon the accused appearance at the police station at given times before the trial. Section 38 of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides that when a person arrested otherwise than under a warrant endorsed for police bail is charged with an offence‚ the custody officer must order his release from police detention either on bail or without unless the suspect’s
Premium Criminal law Jury Crime
Friday Shop and the owners of the apartments (Claimants) to write an opinion to establish if they are able to claim for damages from Boutique Bugs (Defendant) for the amount of $1‚100‚000 based on the elements of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Rylands v Fletcher (R v. F) is based on the doctrine of Strict Liability. This means that the defendant is liable for all damages caused by engaging in hazardous of dangerous activities. Blackburn J at 279 states “We think that the true rule of the law is
Premium Escape Tort Legal terms
OF SPEECH IN CRIMINAL CASES” Table of Contents I. Cases A. The Casey Anthony case B. The O.J. Simpson case II. Discussion A. Reasons why the two cases appeal to the mass i. The complex issues surrounding the cases ii. Lack of evidence to convict the defendants B. Media coverage i. Casey Anthony case ii. O.J. Simpson case C. End result i. Civil lawsuits ii. Where are Casey Anthony and O.J. Simpson now? III. Conclusion IV. Sources Section I. Cases A. State v. Casey Anthony
Premium O. J. Simpson murder case Criminal law Jury
Case of Braswell v. United States Team A Bridget Sarris‚ Bonnie Kyle‚ Erlyn Cruz‚ Ernest Snyder LAW / 421 Robert Tisher May 27‚ 2013 BRASWELL v. UNITED STATES This case presents the question whether the custodian of corporate records may resist a subpoena for such records on the ground that the act of production would incriminate him in violation of the Fifth Amendment. We conclude that he may not. From 1965 to 1980‚ petitioner Randy Braswell operated his business — which comprises
Premium Legal entities Supreme Court of the United States Business law
Actus Reus- D causes V to apprehend immediate physical violence. (fear must be there and then R v Lamb) R v Fagan Events are viewed from V’s prospective‚ not the reasonable person’s. Smith v Chief supt woking police (1983) Assault may be committed by words alone. R v Burstow‚ R v Ireland. Mens Rea- Intention to cause V to apprehendd immediate harm or recklessness as to whether V may apprehend immediate harm. R v Savage ‚ R v Paramenter. D must atleast be aware of the risk that V may fear immediate
Premium Criminal law Theft
CASE STUDY – Page 1 of 2 KERN COUNTY’S VIRTUAL JAIL SUMMARY When California’s Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011 became law last year‚ Kern County‚ CA‚ was faced with a significant increase in the number of offenders to be supervised by the Sheriff’s Office or housed in one of its four existing jails. At full implementation of the Act‚ projections were over 2‚000 additional offenders. They built a “Virtual Jail” system around the idea of reliable‚ innovative electronic monitoring technology
Premium Prison Criminal justice United States
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
Premium Crime Police Miranda v. Arizona
LAW 150 Mims v. Starbucks Corp. Fact: * Kevin Keevican‚ Kathleen Mims‚ and other former managers filed a suit against Starbucks seeking unpaid overtime and other amounts. * In Starbucks Corp. Stores the manager’s responsibilities include supervising and motivating six to thirty employees including supervisors and assistant managers‚ overseeing customer service and processes employee records‚ payrolls‚ and inventory counts. * He or she also develops strategies to increase revenues
Premium Management Employment
themselves when they heard the case of Illinois v. Wardlow on the date of November 2‚ 1999. A few things happened in the U.S. government in 1999. In January‚ Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial began. Clinton would later be acquitted in February. In March‚ the Supreme Court upheld the murder convictions of Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing. The case would become important because it expanded the ruling of a police stop and frisk. This means that the case set a new precedent. The
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Terry v. Ohio