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
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
Is V a Villain or a Hero? This is a very debatable subject that could get intense because‚ V had his Heroic and Villain moments. For instance‚ saving Evey more than twice. Villain moments like saving the people of Lark Hill. V wants to gain the revenge from such a corrupt society that led him to being mad‚ he takes this madness and develops it into heroic acts to save the society. Revenge is a very powerful emotion. V uses these emotions to help the people wake up and find out what is really happening
Premium Hero Odysseus Odyssey
Derek Brown Professor Janet Smith Employment Law BA370 25 July 2011 REEVES V. C.H. ROBIONSON WORLDWIDE The legal issue in this case was whether Reeves was subjected to harassment based on her sex and whether the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to be actionable. The court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to C.H. Robinson‚ holding that “sex specific” language satisfies the “based on sex” element even when the language does not target the plaintiff. The
Premium Discrimination Employment
DIMAPORO V. HRET FACTS: This is a petition brought by Congressman Dimaporo seeking to nullify the twin Resolutions of the HRET which denied his Motion for Technical Evaluation of the Thumbmarks and Signatures Affixed in the Voters Registration Records and Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution Denying the Motion for Technical Examination of Voting Records. Pursuant to the 1998 HRET Rules Congressional candidate Mangotara Petition of Protest (Ad Cautelam) seeking the technical examination
Premium Voting system United States Constitution Election
Mitch Carlson Steve Russell CRIM 331 Case Brief #1 Salinas v. Texas Facts & History On the morning of December 18‚ 1992‚ two brothers were shot and killed in their Houston home. Police were called by a neighbor who heard the gunshots‚ and then seen a “dark colored” car fleeing from the house. It was later found out that defendant‚ Genovevo Salinas‚ was at the residence where the murders took place the night before December 18th. When officers went to Salinas’ house‚ they arrived to a dark blue
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution Miranda v. Arizona
Loving v. Virginia Loving v. Virginia tells me in this case that the Constitution of the United States then were unfair and unjust to the Loving Family. Here we have two people of different race‚ obviously in love and married. Although the state of Virginia had its own objective concerning interracial marriages‚ I feel that our Constitution should have enforced what laws were emplaced within The Constitution of the United States. That’s why they were written to protect and to keep good law and
Free United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Marriage
An individual possesses culpable knowledge only if he knows or strongly suspects the results of his actions will cause harm to another. Balachova v. Mukasey‚ 547 F. 3d at 379. In Balachova v. Mukasey‚ the alien was in the military and aided his fellow soldiers in rounding up several young women from a village and placing them in transport vehicles. Id. He physically placed the young girls‚ against their will in the vehicles‚ the military unit proceeded to take the girls to a different location where
Premium Law Legal terms United States
29. Introduction 30. The decision of the House of Lords in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1] evinces the accuracy of Gooley’s observation that the separate legal entity doctrine was a "two-edged sword".[2] At a general level‚ it was a good decision. By establishing that corporations are separate legal entities‚ Salomon’s case endowed the company with all the requisite attributes with which to become the powerhouse of capitalism. At a particular level‚ however‚ it was a bad decision. By extending the
Premium Corporation Limited liability company
Consti 1 Tañada v Tuvera‚ 136 SCRA 27 (1985) Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-63915 April 24‚ 1985 LORENZO M. TAÑADA‚ ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO‚ and MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD‚ INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM‚ INC. [MABINI]‚ petitioners‚ vs. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA‚ in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President‚ HON. JOAQUIN VENUS‚ in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the President ‚ MELQUIADES P. DE LA CRUZ‚ in his capacity as Director‚ Malacañang
Premium Law