Mapp v. Ohio‚ 367 U.S. 1081‚ 81 S. Ct. 1684‚ 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961) Facts: On May 23rd‚ 1957‚ three Cleveland police officers arrived at the home of Mrs. Mapp with information that ‘a person was hiding out in the home‚ who was wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing‚ and that there was a large amount of policy paraphernalia being hidden in the home’. Mrs. Mapp and her daughter lived on the top floor of the two-family dwelling. Upon their arrival at that house‚ the officers
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Exclusionary rule
The Fifth Amendment which in 1934 the “which protects a defendant from being compelled to be a witness against themselves” (Wright‚ 2013). The self-incrimination portion of the Fifth Amendment was tested case of Miranda v. Arizona. This is the same case that leads to the Miranda Warning. The Miranda warning is an “explanation of rights that must be given before any custodial interrogation” so that self-incrimination will not be a factor. No person can be compelled to openly admit to a crime. They
Premium Crime Police Law
GRAHAM v. CONNOR‚ 490 U.S. 386 (1989) Dethorne Graham‚ who is a diabetic‚ asked a friend‚ William Berry‚ to drive him to a store to purchase some juice to neutralize the start of an insulin reaction. When Dethorne Graham entered the store‚ he saw the number of people that would be ahead of him‚ Dethorne Graham hurried out and asked William Berry to drive him to a friend’s house instead. Connor‚ a Charlotte‚ North Carolina police officer‚ became wary after seeing Dethorne Graham quickly enter
Premium Law United States Tennessee v. Garner
Samuel Malebranche Intro to Criminal Justice Professor Chiarlitti Research Paper #2 United States v. Lopez High school senior Alfonso Lopez of Edison High concealed a .38 caliber revolver into school on March 10‚ 1992. Although he did have five cartridges‚ the gun was not loaded. Lopez told authority that he was to deliver the firearm in exchange for 40 dollars. He was caught by authority because of anonymous tips by fellow classmates. He was confronted and confessed to the crime. He was
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution United States Congress
Consti 1 Tañada v Tuvera‚ 136 SCRA 27 (1985) Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-63915 April 24‚ 1985 LORENZO M. TAÑADA‚ ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO‚ and MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD‚ INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM‚ INC. [MABINI]‚ petitioners‚ vs. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA‚ in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President‚ HON. JOAQUIN VENUS‚ in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the President ‚ MELQUIADES P. DE LA CRUZ‚ in his capacity as Director‚ Malacañang
Premium Law
The case of Wauchop v. Domino ’s Pizza‚ Inc. involves a wrongful death suit on behalf of a family at the hands of an employee of a Domino ’s Pizza franchise. In this instance the defendants named were the company itself‚ the president‚ the franchise owner‚ and the driver of the deliver vehicle involved. The plaintiffs claim that the 30-minute delivery policy was the cause of the accident resulting in the death of the woman. The plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against Thomas Monaghan
Premium Civil procedure Judgment Plaintiff
in the collision. Procedural History: The trial court rendered judgement in favor of plaintiff against both defendants(Duplechin and Duplechin’s liability insurer‚ Allstate Insurance Company). Both Duplechin and Allstate contend that the trial court erred: in not finding that Bourque assumed the risk of injury by participating in the softball game and was guilty of contributory negligence. Duplechin also contends that the trial court erred in negligent. Allstate further contends that the coverage
Premium Tort Common law Tort law
Mapp v. Ohio‚ 1961 According to the Court’s decision‚ why may illegally seized evidence not be used in a trial? Justice Tom C. Clark wrote on the courts behalf saying that it was logically and constitutionally necessary that the exclusion doctrine be insisted upon‚ even in the states. This doctrine is essential to the right of privacy‚ therefore evidence that is found illegally without a warrant must not be used in a trial‚ for this would be unconstitutional. Why‚ according to Justice
Premium Law United States United States Constitution
Legal Brief Case: Right to Confront: Coy V Iowa. Date: August 2‚1985. Principals:(main characters) *Kathy Brown (13) *Linda Thompson (friend) (13) *girls names were changed to protect identities. -intruder believed to be John Avery Coy‚ (34). Facts of the Case: Kathy Brown invited her friend Linda to come and sleep over. Kathy made a makeshift tent out in her backyard. Girls fell asleep between 10:30 and 11:00 pm. In the middle of the night Kathy saw a hand pull back one of the blankets
Free Supreme Court of the United States Jury United States Constitution
Summarize the relevant facts of the case. The relevant facts of Echazabal v. Chevron USA are as follows. Mr. Echnazabal had been working at Chevron USA refinery since 1972 till 1996 until the events presented in the case unfolded. He was employed by independent maintenance contractors for the refinery and worked in the coker unit of the refinery. In 1992‚ when a job opening was posted by Chevron in the same coker unit as that of where Mr. Echnazabal worked‚ he applied for the position to be directly
Premium Appeal Standard Oil Chevron Corporation