Arizona v. Rodney Joseph Gant 1. Heading a. Arizona v. R. Joseph Gant‚ Supreme Court of the United States‚ 2009 (April 21‚ 2009) 2. Statement of Facts a. Tucson‚ Arizona police officers acted on an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 N. Walnut Ave was being used to sell drugs. The door was answered by Rodney Gant‚ who after a records check‚ revealed that Gant’s driver’s license had been suspended and there was an outstanding warrant out for his arrest for driving with a suspended license
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
GONZALES V. RAICH‚ 545 U.S. 1 (2005) 352 F.3d 1222 Facts: Respondents contended that California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996 exempted physicians‚ patients and care givers from criminal prosecution and allowed for the possession and cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes with the recommendation and approval of a physician. Respondents who suffered from medical conditions sought to avail themselves of this exemption. Because the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) enacted under the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution United States Congress
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes‚ Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the "necessary and proper" clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word "expressly" particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution‚ because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated
Premium United States Constitution United States Congress
NASH v. AUBURN UNIVERSITY FACTS: Two Students of Auburn University David Nash and Donna Perry were accused of cheating on their anatomy exams‚ which was a violation of the Student Code of Professional Ethics at Auburn. At a university hearing which was to determine the merits of their charge‚ faculty and student witnesses testified they observed Nash and Perry cheating in various way and at multiple times during their exams. At the conclusion of the hearing the students were suspended from the
Premium Appeal United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Miranda V. Arizona‚ 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Miranda V. Arizona is case where Mr. Ernesto Miranda who was suspected for kidnapping and rape of 18 years old woman. After Mr. Miranda is arrested and identified by victim‚ police interrogated him for two hours and he confessed the crime. However at time he signed a confession he was not aware of his rights. No one told him his rights to remain silent nor informed him that his statement would be used against him. Although‚ when he put his confession into
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
U.S. Supreme Court TEXAS v. JOHNSON‚ 491 U.S. 397 (1989) 491 U.S. 397 Citation: Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute. Date Decided: June 21‚ 1989 Facts of case: At the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas‚ Texas‚ Johnson decided to burn an American flag in protest of some policies made by the Reagan administration and some Dallas corporations that he did not agree with. Noone sustained physical injury or was even
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States
GARRATT v. DAILEY Supreme court of Washington February 14‚ 1955 1.FACTS Plaintiff alleged that as she started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair‚ defendant‚ a child under six years old‚ deliberately pulled it out from under her. The trial court found that defendant was attempting to move the chair toward plaintiff to aid her in sitting down in the chair and that‚ due to defendant’s small size and lack of dexterity‚ he was unable to get the lawn chair under plaintiff in time
Premium Legal terms Plaintiff Tort
A recent criminal Supreme Court case that I find to be interesting is Missouri v. Frye. Actus reus is a guilty act‚ mens rea is a guilty mind‚ and concurrence is the equality of rights. Both actus reus and mens rea are both needed in order for a defendant to prove criminal liability. This case was about a guy named Frye‚ he was arrested for driving with a revoked license. Frye was previously arrested a few times before this incident dealing with the same crime. Missouri state law can give you a maximum
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
Case Name: Kentucky v. King‚ 563 U.S. (2011) Facts: In Lexington‚ Kentucky‚ police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
ruled that Tuskegee city officials redrew the cities boundaries unconstitutionally so that the white candidates in the cities political race could win and the blacks’ votes would not count. This case laid the framework for the passage of the 1965 voters rights act which outlawed discrimination in voting. The case was named after a Tuskegee university professor Charlie A. Gomillion who was the plaintiff and the defendant was the mayor of Tuskegee Phillip M. Lightfoot. Gomillion tried to make it easier
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States American Civil War