ABSTRACT Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark case in criminal procedure of the USA‚ in which the US Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained by illegal search ad seizure which was against the Fourth Amendment‚ will not be used in state courts‚ as well as in federal courts. The Court in Mapp also based its decision on the necessity to protect citizens from police misconduct. This case overrules the decision in the case of Wolf v. Colorado. The Supreme Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio was quite controversial
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Title: R. v. Hufsky‚ [1988] 1 S.C.R 621 Parties: Werner E. J. Hufsky – Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen - Respondent Decision: Appeal was dismissed Notions/Concepts: Constitutional Law Criminal Law Equality before the law Charter of Rights and Freedoms Arbitrary detention Unreasonable Search Refusal to provide breath sample Facts: Appellant was stopped at a random spot check by police Nothing unusual about his driving at the time of the spot check Spot check was for the purposes
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Supreme Court of the United States
Video games are often under fire from publicity-hungry senators who want to pander to the older generation. However‚ as time goes by the people who enjoy video games now will soon be in power. But‚ until that day we are forced to question whether video games and outdoor activities should be compared and contrasted. This essay compares and contrasts outdoor activities. Video games Video games are not designed to burn off a lot of energy. They are not aerobic in any way‚ nor are they able to increase
Premium Computer Video game Nonviolent video game
The legal issues in the SeaWorld of Florida v. Perez case are numerous issues with height requirements from the whales and the trainers. Also‚ the different types of platforms the trainers use for their different types of students and performances. The issue of drywork and waterwork are in question in the case and the question of what is dry work and what is considered wet work on the job. There are some concerns if the distance is wide and high enough for a safe environment away from the whales
Premium Whale Killer whale Beached whale
Holder‚ 132 S. Ct. 1166 (2012)‚ the Supreme Court held that it was possible for one to willfully evade or defeat the payment of a tax without engaging in fraud or deceit by filing a true return but moving one’s assets beyond the IRS’s reach. That is‚ a taxpayer could simply file an accurate return‚ but take steps to evade paying the actual tax liability by transferring his assets to certain trusts or entities or locations where the IRS cannot reach them. In such a case‚ technically‚ there
Premium Fraud Crime Theft
Case: R v. Hebert Facts of Case Judges: Dickson‚ Robert George Brian; Lamer‚ Antonio; Wilson‚ Bertha; La Forest‚ Gérard V.; L’Heureux-Dubé‚ Claire; Sopinka‚ John; Gonthier‚ Charles Doherty; Cory‚ Peter deCarteret; McLachlin‚ Beverley Neil Hebert was suspected of having robbed the Klondike Inn. After the police located Hebert‚ they placed him under arrest and informed him of his rights‚ and took him to the R.C.M.P detachment in Whitehorse. Hebert contacted counsel and obtained legal advice regarding
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Police
Administration Law November 24‚ 2012 Korb v. Raytheon‚ 707 F. Supp. 63 (D. Mass) case involves an employee‚ Lawrence J. Korb and Raytheon Corporation the company. “Korb was terminated from his position as vice president for Washington operation of Raytheon Corporation because he publicly expressed opinions‚ which was a conflict of interest with the corporation’s economic concern” (http://www.loislaw.com.libdatab.strayer.edu/pns/index.htp). The case involves freedom of speech‚ information and challenges
Premium United States United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Wallace v. Jaffree How did the Three Branches of government respond to the social issues of freedom of religion based on Wallace v. Jaffree case? Name: Thao-My Bui Date: 11/4/2014 IB History of the American Word count: 1989 Table of Contents A. Plan of Investigation 3 B. Summary of evidence………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 C. Evaluation of Sources……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…6 D. Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
This is the appellant’s skeleton argument for his appeal. The arguments to quash the conviction under s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) are based on the misdirection’s made by the judge during the trial. There are three main misdirection’s for the appeal‚ which can render the conviction unsafe‚ include: Consent‚ causation and intention. The appellant Billy was convicted under s.18 OAPA of the offences against the person act for causing grievous bodily harm to the victim Anita
Premium Criminal law Acts of the Apostles Law
Summary R. v. Morgentaler was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada‚ a verdict which declared abortion laws in the Criminal Code of Canada as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The court ruled the laws to have violated the woman’s right to security of the person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. After the ruling‚ you could not be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada for having an abortion without consent of the therapeutic abortion committee
Premium Abortion Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms