Liberties Professor Ballone 14 February 2014 Obscenity in Miller v. California Today in our criminal justice system there exists a policy known as “The Miller Test”. The purpose of this test is to determine whether or not a given substance is obscene or not. It is a test that is frequently used today by police‚ and its significance is clearly obvious. The “Miller Test” is a direct result from the outcome of the U.S Supreme Court decision‚ Miller v. California. In this case‚ a local business owner who
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Obscenity Supreme Court of the United States
Target for Lite (1970): 21-34 year old males with blue-collar occupations‚ who were the heavy users of the beer category Insight for Lite (1970): Heavy users of beer (from the above demographic segment) prefer a beer that they can enjoy more of while not compromising on the taste. Position for Lite (1970): Great tasting beer that had fewer calories and doesn’t fill you up Promotion strategy (1970): Advertising on television during sports programming with ex-athletes and other beer-drinking
Premium Marketing
The case Miller v. California (1973) was determined by the Supreme Court‚ which redefined the meaning of obscenity. The word obscene is hard to define and could be seen as “You will know it when you see it.” The Miller case determined if something was obscene‚ the average person‚ applying the standards must find the entire work‚ as obscene‚ the work depicts offensive sexual conduct defined by state law‚ and that the work as a whole lacks literary‚ artistic‚ political‚ or scientific value. Marvin
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Your honor‚ ladies and gentlemen of the jury‚ theft‚ as defined by the Florida State Code 812.014‚ is when a person knowingly obtains or uses‚ or endeavors to obtain or use‚ the property of another with intent to‚ either temporarily or permanently: (1) deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property OR (2) appropriate the property to his or her won use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property. In addition‚ it is a felony‚ as well as grand
Premium Traffic sign Evidence Witness
Florida v Michael A. Riley 488. U.S. 445‚ 109 S. Ct. 693‚ 102L.Ed.2d 835 (1989) Procedural History: On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida Question/Issue: Whether surveillance of the interior of a partially covered greenhouse in a residentially backyard from the vintage point of a helicopter located 400 feet above the greenhouse constitutes a search for which a warrant is required under the Fourth Amendment and Article I. Facts: Pasco County Sheriff office in Florida received an
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Penney WedBetter Professor James Barney LSTD502 Criminal Law Case Brief: State v Stark October 19‚ 2014 Citation: State v. Stark‚ 832 P.2d 109 (Wash.App. 1992) Posture: Stark appealed upon conclusion of a criminal jury and bench trial to Washington Appellate court from in which he was found guilty of three counts of second-degree assault as a result of exposing three female partners to HIV virus on over 6 occasions where he used a condom some of the time and after vaginal intercourse ejaculated
Premium Law Jury Appeal
Mabo and others v State of Queensland (No.2 (1992) HCA 23‚ is arguably one of the most famous native title claims in Australian history. This case was the first in Australian history to successfully overturn Terra Nullius and essentially led to the creation of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (‘The Act’). Terra nullius means land belonging to no one or land that has never been subject to sovereignty of any state and is a part of International Law. The majority of Indigenous People view terra nullius
Premium Australia Indigenous Australians Terra nullius
The case of Fare v. Michael concentrates on what the Miranda case law did for an adults 5th Amendment rights‚ but now deals with a juvenile and an added element (Elrod & Ryder‚ 2014). The defendant in this case was 16 years old and had been charged with murder (Elrod & Ryder‚ 2014). The juvenile defendant did not ask for an attorney‚ but did ask for his probation officer as he was currently on probation (Elrod & Ryder‚ 2014). The police denied his request to have his probation officer contacted
Premium Law Miranda v. Arizona United States Constitution
Miller v. StateSupreme Court of Nevada‚ 1996991 P. 2d 1183People in the United States commit crimes and make up excuses why they should not be held accountable for a crime. Insanity and temporary Insanity have significant differences. One might ask themselves is there really any meaningful difference? During the history of our court system there has been many significant court decisions which address the controversy topics of insanity and temporary insanity as it relates to criminal procedures. One
Premium Insanity defense Law Mental disorder
of the law‚ like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact‚ obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific‚ this case deals with what is considered obscene‚ and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment‚ the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth. What brought this case about? In 1973‚ Marvin Miller‚ operator of one of the West Coast’s largest mail-order businesses dealing in sexually explicit
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Obscenity Supreme Court of the United States