Colorado Case Law Pros And Cons

David Leon Riley was pulled over by a police officer for a driving a vehicle with expired license tags. The police officer who initially stopped Riley discovered that his driver’s license had also been suspended. Following department procedures, the police officer then continued to impound his vehicle. Before the car was impounded, the police officers are required to do an inventory of all of the components of the vehicle to prevent being liable for any missing items after the car is recovered, as well as, to discover any illegal or dangerous items. During the vehicle search, officers found two handguns under the hood of Riley’s vehicle and then proceeded to arrest Riley for the possession of firearms. When the arresting officer conducted a person’s search of Riley, it was found that Riley had a cell phone in his pocket. The cell phone was taken by police and taken back to the station where an analyst discovered data on Riley’s cell phone that was ultimately used to tie Riley to a drive-by shooting that had occurred a few weeks earlier. Based on the pictures and video recovered by the detective analyst specializing in gangs, and ballistics tests conducted on the two hand guns found in Riley’s vehicle, the state of California charged Riley in connection with the shooting. The arresting officer accessed data stored on Riley’s cell phone and noticed a repeated term associated with a street gang.

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 Lobato v. the State of Nevada, it is hard to see how someone could be convicted with evidence that does not make very much sense at all. My groups responsibility was to cover the prosecution side and five pieces of evidence of the case using the information from the news article by Joshua Longobardy titled, “Kirsten Blaise Lobato is accused in a gruesome slaying. Did she do it?”. Upon the detective arriving to the scene of the crime, they removed the debris that covered the body from complete view. This debris included a full sheet of cardboard with a bloody footprint on it and a clear plastic bag wrapped around the groin region. Once this was removed it was discovered that the penis had been sliced off from the base, as well as six of his teeth were found near his body. After several days they were able to identify the man as Duran Bailey, a 44-year-old black male. Another piece of evidence recovered at first with Baileys personal belongings was a piece of chewed gum. When the detectives called Lobato in for questioning, she gave them a statement of how she pulled a knife on a man who tried to attack her. This statement however was for a completely different altercation than what the police were questioning for. Other evidence that came into question were the tire impressions near the entrance of the enclosure, fingerprints lifted from the dumpster, and a foreign piece of hair on Baileys groin region. The argument being made from

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

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).

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.

Freeman no longer has to be worried about being put behind bars for taking Foster’s life when he saved Sorrells and her three-month-old twins.

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

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