Colorado Case Law Pros And Cons

In May of 2007, a man entered the Women's restroom at a horse-racing track that was occupied by two teenage sisters. The man asked the sister if they, “want to drink beer or party” (Pet. for Cert. at 2, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 2012 COA 193 (2012) (No 15-606)). The two sisters declined and the man then turned the lights off in the bathroom. The girls attempted to leave the restroom. The man put his hand on the first sister's shoulder and moved it toward her breast. The sister brushed his his hand away. The man then grabbed the second sister's shoulder and buttocks.

The court rejects the previous test used to decide Free Exercise cases, the Sherbert test. The state no longer had to prove a “compelling interest” for legislation nor that it was the “least restrictive means” of regulation.

This testimony is in regards to Bill HB 2107 (Lucio III), currently referred to the House Committee on Public Health (C410) for review. This bill relates to authorizing the possession, use, cultivation, distribution, transportation, and delivery of medical cannabis for medical use by qualifying patients with certain debilitating medical conditions and the licensing of dispensing organizations and testing facilities; authorizing fees.

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,

In the case of State v, Evans, he was a stalker who stalked Arnold. In the case their was a couple of incidences where he raned into her on purpose, so he was charged with stalking . In the case I will give the facts, issues, and court holding.

A few decades ago, the notion that nature had legal standing with the same rights as people existed on the fringes of the environmental movement. But as a recent spate of legal decisions show, attitudes towards ecological systems are changing.

It is unlikely for Computin to be able to successfully suppress the evidence against him considering any avenue he could take would all be invalidated under the FISA Amendments act, specifically Section 702. One such avenue is claiming his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Under the Fourth Amendment one can expect a “reasonable expectation of privacy” that is both subjective and objective. If Computin expected his laptop to be private and if society would also agree that such privacy is reasonable, he can claim that the court violated his Fourth Amendment Rights. Many cases have seen people try but fail to invoke their Fourth Amendment rights. In the legal case of Riley v. California, Riley moved to suppress evidence that was obtained without a warrant, citing his Fourth Amendment rights that prevented warrantless searches. Even though this was a physical procedure that is different from the manner in which

Despite the fact that criminal defendants use many defenses like “I didn’t do it” or “I did it”, a prosecutor must prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. When a defendant is charged with a crime they have an opportunity to present a defense. There are four broad categories of criminal defenses the legal system recognizes: alibi, justification, excuses, and procedural defenses. (Schmalleger, 2011)

In order for the State of Oklahoma to find an individual incompetent to Stand Trial it requisites a "clear & convincing" proof of 75% percent or higher to discover an individual who has committed a felony incompetent to stand trial (IST). Byron Keith Cooper was accused of murdering an 86 year old lady. At the time of his trial he started talking to someone or something that no one else could see or hear while he was bending down in a fetal position (Cooper v. Oklahoma, 1996).

The main augment in the Riggins v. Nevada case was the forced administration of antipsychotic medication during trial. Riggins’ believed it violated his guaranteed rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Dr. Inman, you seem to always ask very challenging questions that have me second guessing much of what I have researched.

Riley v. California is a Supreme Court case that pertains to the Fourth Amendment; specifically, the privacy clause. This case was decided by the Court in 2014 with a unanimous decision for Riley. It came to the Court after the petitioner, Riley, was stopped for a traffic violation and then arrested on a weapons charge. The arresting officer proceeded to search Riley and removed a cell phone from his pocket. After accessing the phone the officer found evidence of gang related activity. The officer took Riley back to the station and a detective that specialized in gang related crime went through the phone and found multiple pictures and videos pertaining to a shooting a few weeks prior. They sought to enhance the charges due to the evidence found on his phone that connected him to the gangs. Riley moved to suppress the evidence that was discovered on his phone; the trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. A number of interests groups appeared as amici in this case including: EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union, Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, Constitutional Accountability Center amongst others submitted briefs in support of the petitioner. Two groups submitted briefs in support of the respondent and those include Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies and Arizona et al.

Now if his doctor's would have prescribed him Vicoden, or Oxycontin they would have gladly gave him a "medical exemption" and he would have been on his way. However they will make absolutely no medical exemption for marijuana despite

The Supremacy Clause: Conflict between Federal and State Law as it relates to Medical Marijuana

Many studies have shown that marijuana can be an effective treatment for pain, nausea, multiple sclerosis, vomiting associated with chemotherapy, and extensive weight loss associated with AIDS. It can be used by itself as a treatment or it can aid in decreasing the side effects of the specified treatment (Clark). A widely known use of marijuana is to improve decreased appetite that is a result of some cancer treatments. (I.e. chemo or radiation). In 1996 the organization WAMM, “Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana” was founded. The members are low income patients with life-threatening illnesses. This group knew the benefits that marijuana had and wanted to fight for their right to make it available to them. The members grew their own marijuana, and despite ongoing threats from the federal government, WAMM eventually secured a “federal injunction” that protected the group from further interference. For a year WAMM had the only fully legal marijuana garden (Chapkis). The acts performed by this group prove that there is a use for marijuana and people will go to great lengths to get what they need to help them during their healing processes. According to Judge Francis L. Young, DEA Administrative Law Judge, evidence shows that marijuana is capable of safely relieving the distress of people with illnesses and it would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those who suffer and the benefits of this substance