References: ^ "Law professor Tomkovicz writes brief for case in upcoming Supreme Court term". The Press-Citizen. 2008-09-29. http://www.google.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Arrest Supreme Court of the United States
formation of the United States‚ landmark court cases have helped shape the laws of the country. Many factors determine the outcome of these cases such as the morality of the justices and the mind set of the generation it occurred during. For example‚ extremely conservative Supreme Court justices are not going to vote in favor of a liberal court cases. These factors were what decided the outcome of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. One way to understand the outcome of a case is to understand the people involved
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Planned Parenthood v. Casey United States Constitution
Arizona v Johnson (2009) 129 S.Ct. 781 Date of Judgment: January 26‚ 2009 INTRODUCTION In 2002‚ Lemon Montrea Johnson was the passenger in the backseat of a car stopped for a traffic violation. Johnson was charged with; inter alia‚ possession of drugs and possession of a weapon by a felon. These items were discovered during a protective pat-down search of Johnson. Johnson was convicted by the trial court. Johnson argued that his conviction should be overturned because the trial court was
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Court
Ring v. Arizona 122 S Ct 2428 (2002) Facts of the case: On November 28‚ 1994‚ The body of an armored van driver was found dead inside the vehicle. Also‚ there was more than $800‚000 missing from the van leading police to believe that this was a robbery and homicide case. There were no witnesses to the crime except a local bystander who stated that two vehicles‚ a van and a red truck were speeding down the road earlier that day and had neglected to stop at the intersection where there is a stop
Premium English-language films Police Transportation
The People of the State of California v. Pacific Landmark‚ LLC This case is about operators of a business and the owners of the strip mall where business was located. The action alleged that the business was a front for prostitution and an illegal massage parlor. A preliminary injunction was issued by trial of court restricting the operation of a massage parlor or a place of prostitution. Pacific Landmark‚ a restricted liability company and owner of the property and Ron Mavaddat‚ the Pacific’s manager
Premium
Landmark Case Evaluation Fill in the notes for the landmark case you selected to connect with your topic in the previous lessons. You may use the official court documents for the case and articles written about the case to fill in the required information below. Basic Information Title of landmark case (including case number): Title IX Plaintiff: Senator Javits Defendant: Federals Date case argued and decided: June 23‚ 1972 Judgment Affirmed or Reversed: Affirmed Case Evaluation Write three
Premium Higher education College Vocational school
Arizona v. Grant Arizona v. Grant The U.S. Supreme Court limits how police searches a vehicle after Arizona v. Grant. April 21‚ 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court adds new limits on how law enforcement officer can search the passenger compartments of a vehicle. Due to this ruling‚ police officers require having either evidence of a crime for which the suspect is being arrested for‚ or the officers are completing a weapons check that could be within reach of the suspect. Arizona v. Grant makes important
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Police United States Constitution
Ernesto Miranda‚ a mexican immigrant living in the United States‚ was arrested by officers Carroll Cooley and Wilfred Young at Miranda’s home in Phoenix‚ AZ. He was put into custody and taken to a local police station. Miranda was put into police lineup and was identified by the witness‚ Lois Jameson. Following‚ Miranda was interrogated for two hours by two police officers with the Arizona police department‚ before making a written and signed confession of the crimes. This confession was presented
Premium Crime Supreme Court of the United States Police
The Miranda decision emerges from a case back in 1966 which deals with the rights of the accused‚ mainly with the Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate one’s self(Leo‚1996).In this case Ernest Miranda‚‚ a Mexican-American‚ was facing the state of Arizona for raping and kidnapping an eighteen year old woman.The case led to the Miranda warning which requires the officer to notify a suspect of his rights‚i.e. you have the right to remain silent‚and the right to speak to an attorney(Leo‚1996). That
Premium Crime Firearm Gun politics in the United States
focused on non-criminal activities. There are many types of police discretion. The functions of a patrol division of a police department could be easy and challenging. There are different reasons why Miranda v. Arizona was an important court case in relationship to the police. The Miranda v. Arizona case changed things in Law enforcement. The quality of life initiative was policing that was utilized In New York by Mayor Giuliani and his administration around the nineties. (incite-national.org) The
Premium Police Law Criminal law