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
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
MAPP V. OHIO 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Ms. Dollree Mapp and her daughter lived in Cleveland‚ Ohio. After receiving information that an individual wanted in connection with a recent bombing was hiding in Mapp’s house‚ the Cleveland police knocked on her door and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and subsequently refused to let the police in when they failed to produce a search warrant. After several hours of surveillance and the arrival of more officers‚ the police again sought entrance
Premium
Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County Case What was the legal issue in this case? The plaintiff‚ Davis is suing Dona Ana County. The plaintiff was a patient at Mesilla Valley Hospital (MVH) in their inpatient mental facility‚ while she was in their care one of the mental health technicians‚ Joseph Herrera sexually assaulted her. She is suing the County of Dona Ana‚ because Herrera used to be a detention sergeant for the county‚ while employed there he was found to have
Premium Employment
Shelby County v. Holder 570 U.S. __ (2013) was a United States Supreme Court case concerning Section 5 and Section 4 of The Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 5 forbids any state or district‚ that is an eligible voter discrimination area‚ from making any changes to their election process without federal permission. Section 4 labels a state or district as eligible if said state or district had a literacy test or any other unfair device in place as of November 1‚ 1964. Section 4 also clarifies how
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Elections United States
33 Question 1 33 Question 2 33 Question 3 33 Question 4 34 Question 5 34 Question 6 34 Question 7 35 Question 8 35 CAT 3 1993 36 Question 1 36 Question 1 b. 36 Question 2 36 Question 3 a. and b. 37 Question 4 37 Question 5 38 Question 6 38 Question 7a. 38 Question 7b. 39 Question 8 39 VCE CAT 3 1994 40 Question 1 40 Question 2 {criterion 2} 40 Question 3 {hardware & software compatibility} 40 Question 4 {economic and social issues} 40 Question 5 41 Question 6 41
Premium Computer Personal computer
What was the legal issue in this case? The legal issue in the case of Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County involved acts of ill will‚ which could have been avoided. While employed as a detention officer at the Dona Ana County Detention Center‚ Joseph Herrera was accused of unsuitable sexual behavior with female prison inmates and of exchanging favors for sex acts. One of the reasons that the Mesilla Valley Hospital (MVH) had hired Herrera is because of the favorable recommendations
Premium Employment Human sexual behavior Sexual intercourse
Page 1 Case Name: Saelman v. Hill Between Jacques Saelman and William Wuerch‚ plaintiffs‚ and Dennis Wayne Hill and Sylvia Ann Hill‚ defendants [2004] O.J. No. 2122 [2004] O.T.C. 440 20 R.P.R. (4th) 118 2004 CanLII 9176 131 A.C.W.S. (3d) 367 Court File No. 13526/00 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Kingston‚ Ontario Hackland J. Heard: April 5-8 and 13-16‚ 2004. Judgment: May 20‚ 2004. (47 paras.) Damages -- For torts -- Affecting property -- Real property -- Nuisance -- Inconvenience -Psychological
Premium Tort Law Pleading
technology course per training session. (a) Identify the main entity types for the company. (b) Identify the main relationship types and specify the multiplicity for each relationship. State any assumptions you make about the data. (c) Using your answers for (a) and (b)‚ draw a single ER diagram to represent the data requirements for the company. Chapter 13 Extended Entity-Relationship Modelling 13.7- Describe the two main constraints that apply to a specialization/generalization
Premium Data modeling Entity-relationship model
Sample Answers to Questions 1 and 2. Most of you did well on questions 3 and 4‚ so here I post only sample answers to questions 1(a) & (b) and 2: 1(a) & 1(b): Question on whether moving production to China is ethical; Question on the economic and social costs and benefits of such a move. Sample Answer (A) Note: this student earned high grades for looking at the issue from multiple perspectives‚ for looking at the benefits and costs to all major stakeholders‚ and for acknowledging that
Premium Universal Declaration of Human Rights Human rights Ethics