Case Study: Carrer V. Arizona

According to police reports, Mr. Jonathan Hartshorn was involved in a single vehicle non-injury accident when the vehicle he was operating rear ended another vehicle in the drive thru lane at 1212 S Rock Rd. Officers were called to the accident and made contact with Mr. Hartshorn, who had moved to 1219 S Rock Rd. Officer Reser made contact with Mr. Hartshorn and detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage on Mr. Hartshorn. Mr. Hartshorn also had slurred speech. Officer Reser had Mr. Hartshorn perform the sobriety tests, which he failed. Mr. Hartshorn submitted to a breath test which showed a BAC of

FACTS: Graham, 16 years old, was sentenced to three years' probation, with the first year to be served in the county jail. Less than six months after being released, he was arrested for a home-invasion robbery with two accomplices. After that, he was sentenced to life imprison without the possibility of parole.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has charged Nathan Moss (Mr. Moss) with 1 count of violating a no contact order that Claire Cohen (Ms. Cohen) put out against him. Nathan Moss and Claire Cohen are both seniors at Plymouth South High School and dated for about 10 months prior to Ms. Cohen placing a protective order against Mr. Moss.

After the death of Senator Sam Foley, Hubert Hopper, a governor, was pressured to select a newly appointed senator.

The Arizona state legislature passed into law S.B 1070, which was intended to address issues related to illegal aliens in the state. The law made it a crime for illegal aliens to be in Arizona, without legal documents, it also authorized local and state law enforcement to enforce federal laws and prohibited the hiring, sheltering and transportation of illegal aliens. The legislation initiated constitutional concerns over violation of civil rights and was considered as encouraging racial profiling. There were also demonstrations against the legalization. The department of justice sough to stop

Following the termination of the Colorado State University women’s varsity softball team on June 1, 1992; plaintiffs sought reinstatement on the basis of a Title IX violation ("Roberts v. Colorado State University, 814 F. Supp. 1507 (D. Colo. 1993) :: Justia," 1993). The girls found terminating their sports team to be unjust. The plaintiffs argued financial difficulties and lack of participation and support for the boy’s baseball team did not warrant termination of the softball program. They also argued getting recruited to play Division I level softball afforded them a better chance at improving their future. Most girls had a substantial amount of scholarship money that helped them afford college ("Roberts v. Colorado State University, 814

In the case of the State v. Wells, Defendant Paul Ellis Wells was charged with a DUI in California for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana and causing serious bodily injury to three other victims. At first glance, this case seems obvious that the defendant’s negligence at the wheel was caused by him being intoxicated. Further research shows that the defendant was diagnosed by a doctor as being prediabetic. In my opinion, the actus reus elements of the crime of DUI would be that the defendant did test positive for marijuana in a blood test conducted which in any state would be considered a DUI because it is obviously a crime to operate a motor vehicle under any substance that can alter your mind. On the other hand,

Ernesto Miranda was arrested on March 31, 1963 and charged with kidnapping and rape. The arresting officer(s) transported Miranda to the police station where they conducted an interrogation, and during this time Miranda’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated. Miranda was interrogated for two hours after which he wrote a confession to the crimes he was being accused of. Once Miranda went to trial and the confession were presented in court, the defense attorney advised the judge that the confession should not be used as evidence in the case due to the fact that the police officers admitted that they did not advise Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during his interrogation.

The landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona is one of many cases that made an impact on the future of our criminal justice system. In 1966, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix and accused of kidnapping a raping a young woman. He was interrogated for two hours and signed a confession that later formed the basis of his later conviction on the charges. The United States Supreme Court ruled that Miranda's conviction was unconstitutional because the interrogation occurred before the suspect was advised of his rights. Additionally, any evidence obtained before the suspect is advised of his rights cannot be used against him. The Miranda rights are to ensure the protection of individual rights was guaranteed under the Constitution. To ensure that proper

On June 26, 2003, a Supreme Court decision reserved a Texas law preventing consensual, special sexual activity between lesbians and guys. The Court ruled, in Lawrence v Texas. The court mentioned the essential right to confidentiality, and also the right of lesbians and gays have enjoy equal protection on the law. The opinion also reserved the disreputable 1986 resolution in the case of Hardwick v Bowers that the court had upheld a like Georgia homosexualism statute.

The US Supreme court wanted to deem what Native Americans were in the evolution of the United States of America, in just they really wanted to change the stance on tribal sovereignty that fit the US. Before set laws the only ways to deal with Native Americans were through wars, bullied negotiations and forced treaties to acquire all land. Treaties functioned as the most important documentation describing the relationship between Europeans and Natives. This continued until the courts began to bring specific meaning to these laws that were recognized through the courts of the US. A land title definition to the Europeans politics was that Indian’s had land to give and was for private individuals to receive. So there was a need to regulate these

In the landmark court case, Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court held that when a person is taken into custody of the police, or has been deprived of their freedom of action in any significant way, they must be advised of their constitutional rights. Reason being is because the court realized that in custodial interrogations, the compulsion for a person to potentially incriminate their self is apparent. Therefore, without proper safeguards, the process of custodial interrogation would compel an individual to speak where they would otherwise not do so freely. In the years following Miranda, there has been considerable controversy regarding the extent of Miranda’s prophylactic shield, and under what circumstances the safeguards of Miranda will apply to juveniles.

1. How, if at all, can you distinguish Greber from other instances of payment for professional services? Suppose the percentage Dr. Greber paid to the physicians had not exceeded Medicare’s guideline? Would that payment still amount to prohibited remuneration in this court’s eyes?

1.What is required in order for the police to legally detain, question, and search a citizen without a warrant? How is this different from what is required for an officer to effect an arrest? Finally, what does Herman Goldstein tell us about police use of arrest (OTHER than the initiation of prosecution)?

Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) The Court held that a defendant must prove there is a legitimate expectation of privacy for a search to be challenged.