Angela jackson Ap government 9 September 2014 Riley v. California In the case of Riley v California the defendant and petitioner David Leon Riley was arrested August 22‚ 2009‚ after a traffic stop which resulted in the finding of loaded guns in car. The officer stopped riley searched him and took hold of his phone and then searched through messages‚ contacts‚ and photos. The officer charged Riley with an unrelated shooting that had taken place
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Mobile phone
Marbury v. Madison On President John Adam’s last day in office‚ March 4 he appointed forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia as an attempt by the federalists to take control of the judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office. The commissions were signed and sealed by President Adams‚ but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adams’s presidency. Jefferson‚ the president succeeding Adams‚ refused to uphold the new judicial
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Marbury v. Madison United States Constitution
Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd (Salomon) has created an impressive case in English Law history. The decision of the House of Lords in Salomon has reaffirmed the separate legal personality of a company. A separate legal personality is also known as the corporate personality. It is one of the consequences of the Company Act 2006 which incorporated a sole trader company to a limited company. When a company has undergone incorporation‚ it simply means that the shareholders of the company are separated
Premium Corporation Limited liability
Virginia v. Moore 272 Va. 717 Facts: The day was February 20‚2003‚ in the city of Portsmouth where two Portsmouth police officers had pulled a vehicle over who was driven by David Lee Moore. While listening to police radio they had heard that the man they pulled over who went by the nickname “chubs” was driving on a suspended license. The officer’s soon determined that chubbs was indeed driving on a suspended license. The officers who made the stop arrested chubbs for the misdemeanor of driving
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
�PAGE � Marbury v. Madison Introduction The case "Marbury v. Madison began on March‚ 1801‚ when a Proponent‚ William Marbury‚ was assigned as a magistrate in the District of Columbia. William Marbury and various others were constituted to government posts made by United States Congress in the last days of President John Adams’s administration; merely these eleventh hour appointments were never completely nailed down. The dissatisfied appointees raised an act of US Congress and litigated for their
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
Cantwell V. Connecticut One of the freedoms protected by law in the United States is the right to choose and speak about one’s religious beliefs. The first amendment of the U.S Constitution protects this freedom by preventing congress from passing any laws that prohibit‚ or ban‚ the “Free exercise” of religion. This portion of the first amendment is called the free exercise clause. This is a very important and beneficial right to everyone. This essay will illustrate how the Cantwell V. Connecticut
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Marbury v. Madison is viewed as the most important case in the U.S. Supreme Court history. The important constitutional principle that was established by U.S. Supreme Court‚ was to use the idea of “Judicial Review”‚ which is the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution. Under Justice Marshall‚ the court began its ascent as equal in power to the congress and president. Jefferson as the new president‚ did not want appointees from the opposing party taking the
Premium United States Constitution United States Supreme Court of the United States
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY‚ LUCKNOW 2012-13 FINAL DRAFT ON BIRD v JONES Under The Guidance Of: Submitted by: ( ) ( ) Mr. Shashank Shekhar Assistant Professor Roll
Premium Logic Reason Law
Tennessee v Garner refers to using “all necessary means to effect the arrest” in the case of a suspect fleeing or forcibly resisting (FindLaw‚ n.d.). With this Tennessee statute‚ there are some stipulations (FindLaw‚ n.d.). There must be a belief that the suspect will act in a manner which would cause serious physical harm or death to others (FindLaw‚ n.d.). The amount of forced used must be in balance with the crime committed and how imminent harm is likely to occur (FindLaw‚ n.d.). Two police
Premium Police
Mapp v. Ohio‚ 1961 According to the Court’s decision‚ why may illegally seized evidence not be used in a trial? Justice Tom C. Clark wrote on the courts behalf saying that it was logically and constitutionally necessary that the exclusion doctrine be insisted upon‚ even in the states. This doctrine is essential to the right of privacy‚ therefore evidence that is found illegally without a warrant must not be used in a trial‚ for this would be unconstitutional. Why‚ according to Justice
Premium Law United States United States Constitution