Terry v. Ohio: Martin McFadden was a police officer in Ohio who noticed that two individuals appeared to be acting suspiciously. While watching these people from his police car‚ Officer McFadden noticed that these two men appeared to be planning a criminal attack. The two men were walking back and forth in front of a store while conspiring with each other. When McFadden approached the two men and identified himself as a law enforcement officer‚ he walked them down the street and frisked them for
Premium Police Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Crime
charges. The Riley v. California case was argued April 29‚ 2014 and decided on June 25‚ 2014.The main issue in this case was how the police officer searched his phone without a warrant then arrested him and if this action violated the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment clearly states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons‚ houses‚ papers‚ and effects‚ against unreasonable searches and seizures…”.
Premium
Title of Case: Florida v. Michael A. Riley Legal Citation: 488 U.S. 445‚ 109 S.Ct. 693‚ 102 L.Ed.2d. 835 (1989) Procedural History: The respondent‚ Michael A. Riley‚ was charged with possession of marijuana under Florida law. The trail court granted his motion to suppress; the Court of Appeals reversed but certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court‚ which rejected the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trail court’s suppression order. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
have addressed the constitutional rights of individuals and groups. These decisions have limited as well as expanded the rights of the members of these groups. Cases such as Korematsu v. United States and Roe v. Wade are examples of the limitation and expansion of rights. The historical circumstances surrounding the case of Korematsu v. U.S. are as follows. In the 1940’s there was a strong anti-Japanese feeling throughout all of America. There was an act passed requiring all people of Japanese
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
Russell v. the Queen (1882): This case fell according to the JCPC under powers in favor of the federal government. The reasoning for this case is not convincing. The reason for this is that it does not ban alcohol for the entire country‚ but instead merely restricts and regulates it. The legislation for this case could have fallen under: section 92 (9)‚ which deals with saloons‚ taverns‚ and shops; section 92 (13) which is about property and civil rights in the province; or section 92 (16) which
Premium United States Canada United States Constitution
time of making of the charter is so classed. It has no future assurance that the owner will continue to act to retain the class . The loss of the class may be due to unseaworthiness or some other breach of ship-owners obligations. Routh v. Macmillan In the case the merchant at New York chartered a ship ‘Hannah Eastee’ classed A1 ship at Lloyd’s for carrying a load of wheat to England. But due to bad management she runs off from A1 power. The cargo arrived safe but the merchants sued for the extra
Premium Contract Contract law Law
themselves when they heard the case of Illinois v. Wardlow on the date of November 2‚ 1999. A few things happened in the U.S. government in 1999. In January‚ Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial began. Clinton would later be acquitted in February. In March‚ the Supreme Court upheld the murder convictions of Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing. The case would become important because it expanded the ruling of a police stop and frisk. This means that the case set a new precedent. The
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Terry v. Ohio
Swan v. Talbot‚ Phelan v. Gardner‚ Marron v. Marron Case Briefs Jennifer Beverly PA205-02 Professor Byron Grim June 20‚ 2011 Case Briefs Citation: Swan v. Talbot‚ 152 Cal. 142 (Cal. 1907) Facts: George Swan‚ plaintiff‚ sold James R. Talbot‚ defendant‚ a portion of personal property. Swan was inebriated at the time the deal was prepared. The portion of the property sold to Talbot was valued at $21‚949.86. Talbot paid Swan $10‚604.32‚ this included $200 in coin that was paid to Swan
Premium Appeal
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
trevor v whitworth [1887] case i need to get this case ‚ what is the case is in about the face and the courts decision Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd. v. Hotel Rasa Sayang Sdn. Bhd. & Anor[1990] 1 MLJ 356. The appellants extended loans to the respondents and the loan was secured by documents and guarantees. The documents evidencing the loans showed that the hotel whose shares were being purchased by a company had given financial assistance to that company. This act contravened Section 67 of the Companies
Premium Bond Debt Platoon