The drug court is a unique effort that uses the occasion of a drug offence arrest as an intervention opportunity for drug offenders even though historical problems in criminal justice diversion and referral programs the Dade County success rates have shown that these problems can be overcome through unique collaborative relationships‚ innovative treatment design‚ and the elimination of conventional gaps in the referral- treatment-monitoring process. It is the purpose of this paper to explore the
Premium Crime Judge Addiction
typed letter signed by Poonam was received at the Gandhi Nagar Police Station stating that ‘she had married Jitender with her own will and requested not to file any criminal case against Jitender’. Thereafter on 07.05.2010 Jitender and Poonam were apprehended from Bilaspur in Utter Pradesh and produced before respective court. Poonam refuse to undergo any medical examination. She did not state any thing against Jitender in her statement before the Magistrate under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure
Premium Marriage Delhi
he was punished twenty to thirty years in prison for each. The Miranda v. Arizona appealed but‚ the Supreme Court of Arizona maintain that Miranda’s Constitutional Rights existed in achieving the confession. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Miranda’s conviction but was retried and convicted‚ without the confession‚ by the State of Arizona.
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Families are also affected by drug abuse. Sixty to eighty percent of child abuse and neglect cases involve substance abuse by a parent or guardian (Malroew‚ 2012) The first family drug court was stated back in 1995 in Reno‚ Nevada and since then there are only about 300 operating family drug courts in the United States. The average cost of foster care for one child in the state of Oregon it costs about seventy two dollars and eighty nine cents per day. In one year that is about twenty six thousand
Premium Addiction Drug addiction Substance abuse
Moot Court Competn-2008-Case ICSI CORPORATE LAW MOOT COURT PROBLEM 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI C.P.No: 36 of 2007 Paolo Luscini & Co. (PL) …… Petitioners V RELIVE CO. LTD …… Respondent 1. RELIVE CO.LTD was incorporated in the year 1971 in the State of Maharashtra with the object of carrying on the business of media and telecommunications. The paid-up share capital of the company was 130 million comprising of 13 million shares of Rs. 10 each. The Company initially
Premium Money Stock Balance sheet
The People of the State of Michigan vs. Mateos Trial 18th Judicial Circuit Court‚ Bay City‚ MI Presiding Judge: The Honorable Harry Gill November 19‚ 2013 @ 9:12 a.m. Submitted by November 20‚ 2013 I met outside of 18th Judicial Circuit Court at approximately 7:55 a.m. on November 19‚ 2013. The trial that we watched was supposed to start at 8:30; we got there a little early to be safe. The trial did not end up starting until 9:16 because some of the
Premium Jury
a local Criminal District court and a nearby Justice of the Peace court‚ conclusions can be made about the construction and activities that occur in each courtroom. Criminal court proceedings compared to civil court proceedings are in many ways very different. The aura of the courtroom was entirely distinct between the two courts. The judge in the civil courtroom was more relaxed‚ and the vibe of the room itself was less intense than the criminal courtroom. Criminal court was much more tedious and
Premium Judge Law Jury
Supreme Court uses various criteria for the consideration of cases. Not all cases may be chosen by the Supreme Court‚ so they must wisely choose their cases. The Court must be uniform and consistent with the cases they choose according to federal law. "Supreme Court Rule 17‚ Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari ’" (Rossum 28).These rules are obligatory to follow because the Court uses it to grant certiorari. There are four basic rules for Rule 17. First‚ the Supreme Court must decide
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Even if transgender people were hired‚ the employment relationship is short-lived as they often faced with the hostile work environment. The court case Glenn v Brumby clearly illustrates the workplace discrimination against the transgender individuals. Glenn‚ the plaintiff was hired as an editor in October 2005. About a year later‚ Glenn informs her supervisor regarding her transition to a female‚ furthermore‚ Glenn came to work dressing up as a female during Halloween. Her employer Brumby sent her
Premium Gender Transgender LGBT
Terry v. Ohio was a court decision made in 1968 that still affects how police conduct their operations to this day. This case gave special liberties to police officers which would otherwise be in conflict with the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states " the right of the people to be secure in their persons‚ house‚ papers‚ and effects‚ against unreasonable searches and seizure‚ shall not be violated‚ and no Warrants shall issue‚ but upon probable cause‚ supported by Oath or affirmation‚ and
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution