In the case US v. Calandra (1974)‚ Calandra was being questioned by the federal grand jury about loan sharking business. The reason the jury was asking these question were based on the evidence obtained at his company. Calandra didn’t want to answer any questions because he felt that the search of the company was an unlawful search and that it violated his fourth amendment exclusionary rule. The refusal to answer the grand jury‚ was what was being question about this case. Calandra felt like because
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Macedon Police Department During my senior year in high school‚ through my EMCC (Eastern Monroe Career Center) Boces program‚ my criminal justice teacher told our class we were going to intern 10-12 weeks somewhere in the field that we were interested in. I was accepted to intern with the Macedon Police Department. I went to my internship Monday through Friday from 8am until 10:30 am. My main supervisor was Earl Lergner. He is a police officer that is in charge of the evidence chamber. He has
Premium Management Intern United States
A Case Report on Supreme Court Decisions The Supreme Court has made decisions that have been important in shaping the interpretation of the Constitution. “The Framers of the Constitution intended for the Supreme Court to stand between the two branches of the national government and the people‚ to prevent abuses of power and improper interpretations of the Constitution (Mott‚ 2008). The case of Brown vs. Board of Education‚ 347 U.S. 483 (1954)‚ is an example of when and amendment to the Constitution
Premium Brown v. Board of Education Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Case No.2013-41-SP BKJ On April 1‚ 2013 Special Agent (SA) Benjamin Jenkins and SA Ike Fairlane‚ Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)‚ 10433 Ponderosa Drive‚ Durango‚ CO xxxxx‚ telephone number (xxx) xxx-xxxx‚ received a telephone call from Agent Jay Silverheels‚ Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)‚ 111 Ute Way‚ Southern Ute Indian Reservation (SUIR)‚ CO xxxxx‚ telephone number (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Agent Silverheels provided the following information: At approximately 9:30am on April 1‚ 2013‚ Richard
Premium Federal Bureau of Investigation
Introduction There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts 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
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Obscenity Supreme Court of the United States
Mapp V Ohio “The right of the people to be secure in their persons‚ houses‚ papers‚ and effects‚ against unreasonable searches and seizures‚ shall not be violated‚” Mapp V. Ohio (1961) dealt with that very sentence of the constitution. Were the officers at fault or Mapp? This complex question has a complex answer one that puzzled the Supreme Court and led to a change in criminal procedure. The verdict was a strict interpretation of the constitution. The fourth amendment was relevant because
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Roberta broker never stated which shares of stock was actually sold. Furthermore‚ Roberta oral instructions never specified which specific shares of stocks she wanted to be sold. In the relevant court case Helvering v. Rankin‚ 295 U.S. 123 (1935)‚ the court decided: "When shares of stock in a corporation are sold from lots purchased at different dates and at different prices‚ and the identity of the lots cannot be determined‚ the stock sold shall be charged against the earliest
Premium Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Balance sheet Investment
Barron V. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore 1833 7 vote(s) for Mayor and City Council‚ 0 vote(s) against *Background of case: *the case began with a lawsuit from John Barron against Baltimore stating that it deprived him of his property which violates the Fifth Amendment. It proves that the government cannot take private property with just compensation. The court found that Baltimore deprived him of his private property and gave him $4‚500. It was later reversed but then appealed to the Supreme
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Speelman was on probation. She then arranged for her 19 year old daughter‚ Audrey Larson‚ to care for her children at her apartment. BHA was not notified Speelman had been incarcerated or of the new occupant in the residence. Office Lowell English‚ BHA’s police liason‚ was responding to a complaint about Speelman’s children running around the apartment complex at night. After his visit‚ officer English found Speelman was incarcerated. On June 2‚ BHA sent a notice stating Speelman’s voucher payments will
Premium Internal audit
Criminal Court Cases What makes this country so great? Most people disagree on the answer to that question. Some say it’s the freedom of speech that we have. Others will say that it’s our ability to vote and elect who we want to lead us. This is all well and good‚ but what really sets our country apart from many others is our right to a speedy and public trial of our peers. Some governments in other parts of the world reserve the right to take any citizen right off of the street and place him
Premium Crime Criminal law Criminal justice