Virginia vs. Moore Crystal Simpkins‚ James Rodocker‚ Richard Smith‚ Sharmaine Currie‚ Teneshia Murray‚ Professor Jim Daly CJA/304 August 10‚ 2015 February 20‚ 2003 Portsmouth‚ Virginia two detectives responded to a radio call of a suspended driver. (No clear location of the traffic stop) after the subject was arrested he was moved to the second location. Second location was the hotel parking lot of Moore where the officers decided to search him finding the 16grams of crack cocaine
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Law Supreme Court of the United States
Virginia v. Moore 272 Va. 717 Facts: The day was February 20‚2003‚ in the city of Portsmouth where two Portsmouth police officers had pulled a vehicle over who was driven by David Lee Moore. While listening to police radio they had heard that the man they pulled over who went by the nickname “chubs” was driving on a suspended license. The officer’s soon determined that chubbs was indeed driving on a suspended license. The officers who made the stop arrested chubbs for the misdemeanor of driving
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
Virginia v Black Facts: Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan‚ who burnt a cross on private property. Black states that the cross was burnt to inspire his KKK buddies and that he had no knowledge anyone who might feel intimidated was present let alone could see it. Black was arrested for violating a Virginia statute. Separately‚ O’Mara and Elliott were arrested for violating the same statute after burning a cross in their neighbor’s yard after a dispute. All three men were convicted and
Premium Ku Klux Klan Supreme Court of the United States Law
Loving v. Virginia Loving v. Virginia tells me in this case that the Constitution of the United States then were unfair and unjust to the Loving Family. Here we have two people of different race‚ obviously in love and married. Although the state of Virginia had its own objective concerning interracial marriages‚ I feel that our Constitution should have enforced what laws were emplaced within The Constitution of the United States. That’s why they were written to protect and to keep good law and
Free United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Marriage
Police Report Tomas Gonzalez‚ University of Phoenix CJA/304 February 26‚ 2013 Oscar N. Ruiz Police Report There are various types of communication used through the criminal justice process‚ considering the witness‚ prosecution‚ judge‚ and defense they all have their own element of communication to get their message across effectively and to prove their point. Communication for Prosecution and Defense The type of communication used by the prosecution or defense is typically more formal
Premium Communication Jury Writing
Loving v. Virginia (No. 395) In Loving v Virginia a married couple from Washington D.C. moved to Virginia where they were then subject to Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute. Anti-miscegenation laws prohibit the marrying of different races with another. In Virginia‚ this statute prohibited the marriage between whites and any other race. Richard Loving‚ a white man‚ and Mildred Jeter‚ a black woman‚ were married in Washington D.C. They then moved to the state of Virginia where they faced
Premium Marriage United States Miscegenation
Loving v. Virginia Loving v. Virginia was a landmark civil rights decision of the USSC (United States Supreme Court)‚ which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. The case was brought by Mildred Loving‚ a colored woman‚ and Richard Loving‚ a white man‚ were sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state’s anti-miscegenation statue‚ the Racial Integrity Act of 1924‚ which prohibited marriage between people classified as “white”
Premium Marriage Miscegenation Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia were Richard and Mildred Loving‚ who were represented by the ACLU in the Supreme Court. The Plaintiff argued the prohibition of interracial marriage was unconstitutional and anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment explains‚ “No State shall deprive any person of life‚ liberty‚ or property‚ without due process of the law.” As declared by the Constitution and Maynard v. Hill case
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States
Souce of Activity: I was dispatched to the residence of 221 Wakefield Drive on June 24‚ 2010 at approximately 07:15 hours in reference to a report of a death at the residence. Interview with Complainant (Mr. Smith): Smith stated he is neighbors with the victim (Courtney Fink.) Smith stated his wife was having a jewelry sale at their residence on the evening of June 23‚ 2010 which Courtney was supposed to attend. Smith stated that it was odd that Courtney did not attend since she had said she
Premium Interview American film actors
(xxx) xxx-xxxx. Marshal Duschene immediately contacted the Southern Ute Police Department (SUPD)‚ 1973 Ute Way‚ SUIR‚ CO‚ xxxxx‚ telephone number (xxx) xxx-xxxx. The SUPD dispatched Officer Leonard Slye and Officer William Boyd to the crime scene. The Officers identified the victims and confirmed the double homicide. They contacted SUPD Dispatch via radio and secured the scene. Marshal Duschene then wrote an Incident Report regarding the information about Mr. Betcher and Ms. Stuart. The Marshal advised
Premium Federal Bureau of Investigation