will investigate two endangered species‚ the Arizona agave plant endemic of Arizona‚ and the Mexican Wolf (Lobo) of the Southwest. The Arizona agave‚ also known as Agave arizonica‚ is rare and native to central Arizona. This species is somewhat small‚ and measures at about
Premium Extinction Endangered species Species
The Arizona budget is currently meeting its objectives and obligations. The needs of residents within the State are meet accordingly. The Congress of the State for the past few years have kept a balanced budget. Moreover‚ the appropriations are distributed directly to the programs/services provided by Arizona. Legislators and the governor priorities in funding the expenditures of the state seem to be connected to the constituents of its districts. As an Arizona resident‚ the proposal for the
Premium Tax Taxation Economics
Case Brief Miranda v. Arizona Citation: 384 U.S. 436‚ 10 Ohio Misc. 9‚ 86 S. Ct. 1602‚ 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966) Brief Fact Summary: Self-incriminating evidence was provided by the defendants while interrogated by police without prior notification of the Fifth Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution. Synopsis of Rule of Law: Authorities of the Government must notify suspects of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights prior to an interrogation following an arrest. Facts: The Supreme
Premium Miranda v. Arizona United States Constitution Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
• -e -. for the • • exannnatIon E. MOUTSOU·S. PARKER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~~ : •• mm publications • ~O ~ for the • • examInatIon ‚ E. MOUTSOU-S. PARKER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• mm mm publications Reading Comprehension for the FCE Examination E. Moutsou - S. Parker Published by: MM Publications www.mmpublications.com info@mmpublications.com Offices Great Britain - Greece - Poland - France - Cyprus -USA - Turkey Associated companies and representatives throughout
Premium Nobel Prize Paragraph Sentence
Political Systems- Final 6 October 2014 Miranda v. Arizona Outline Argued: February 28‚ March 1 and 2‚ 1966 Decided: June 13‚ 1966 Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda and it also enforced the Miranda warning to be given to a person being interrogated while in the custody of the police. Miranda Warning: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States
In Miranda v. Arizona (1966)‚ the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects‚ prior to police questioning‚ must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The case began with the 1963 arrest of Phoenix resident Ernesto Miranda‚ who was charged with rape‚ kidnapping‚ and robbery. Miranda was not informed of his rights prior to the police interrogation. During the two-hour interrogation‚ Miranda allegedly confessed to committing the crimes‚ which
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States Chief Justice of the United States
Arizona v. Gant PALS480-Capstone June 20‚ 2012 The Parties • Plaintiff – State of Arizona • Defendant – Rodney Gant • Appellant – State of Arizona • Respondent – Rodney Gant Procedural History • Respondent‚ Rodney Gant‚ was arrested for driving with a suspended license. Subsequent to the search of the Gant’s vehicle officers found cocaine in the back seat. At trial Gant moved to have the evidence suppressed denied that there was probable cause to search the vehicle‚ but did
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Miranda vs. Arizona: This case had to do with an Ernest Miranda who raped a Patty McGee*. After extracting a written confession from the rapist about the situation‚ Miranda’s lawyer argued that it was not valid since the Phoenix Police Department failed to read Miranda his rights‚ also in violation of the Sixth Amendment which is the right to counsel. Some factors that helped support Miranda’s arguments were that the suspect had requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with a lawyer;
Premium Miranda v. Arizona United States Constitution Police
Robert Henry Miranda v Arizona “This Court has undertaken to review the voluntariness of statements obtained by police in state cases since Brown v. Mississippi‚ 297 U. S. 278 (1936). (Davis v. North Carolina‚ 384 U.S. 737 (1966)) The Warren Court from 1953 until 1969 established luminary rights with its liberal interpretation‚ and as some say “ judicial policy making”‚ such as the “right to privacy” Griswold v. Connecticut‚ 381 U.S. 479(1965)‚ “separate but equal is not constitutional” Brown
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Court Brief Miranda v. Arizona Citation: Miranda v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart‚ Supreme Court of the United States‚ 1966. Issue: Whether the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants. Relief Sought: Miranda was violated the 5th Amendments right to remain silent and his 6th Amendment right
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution