Robinson Vs California Case Study

In the case of Stromberg V. California, Yetta Stromberg was arrested for violating a California law enacted in 1919.  The law made it a crime to have a red flag displayed as a sign, symbol, or an emblem of not supporting an organized government, in a public meeting area. Stromberg was arrested when working around San Bernardino, California, at a summer camp for young Communists. The camp was raided on August 3, 1929 by American Legion members who were led by George H. Johnson, the district attorney of San Bernardino. This raid was brought by the Better America Federation of Los Angeles and the Intelligence Bureau of the Los Angeles Police Department.  The raiders seized a red flag and found a cardboard box that contained sheet music and Communist

Facts: This case consists of Hereford a criminal informant who gets information of narcotic laws to Officer Marsh; a federal narcotic agent with 29 years on the job. Hereford had been feeding Marsh information for close to 6 months and that information was accurate and reliable. In the early days of September 1956, Hereford told Officer Marsh that the defendant James Draper was distributing illegal narcotics throughout Denver. Several days later, Hereford told Marsh that in the days before Draper went to Chicago and set to return with several ounces of heroin. Along with the information given Hereford gave a physical description of Draper, which included his age, weight, race, and clothes that he had

Facts: Stephen R. Newton (Newton) was an employee of Henderson City as a police officer. Newton had been assigned to the DEA in October 1987 until he resigned in 1991. Newton claims he was not compensated for all the overtime hours he worked as a Task Force Officer. The city of Henderson entered an agreement with the DEA to remain Newton’s employer consequently rendering them responsible for “establishing the salary benefits including overtime of the Henderson Police Department officer assigned to the Task Force, and making all payments due.” Prior to 1990, Newton had not received authority from the City to work any overtime.

At the time of the first incident involving Riley, he was known to be affiliated with the Lincoln Park gang in San Diego, California. On August 2, 2009, Riley with a few other gang members shot at a man of their opposing gang. Shortly after the scene took place, Riley and his crew then drove off in Riley’s vehicle. After a few days, on August 22, 2009, a police officer had pulled Riley over for expired tags on the current vehicle he was driving. At the same time, after running his license, the officer discovered that Riley was driving on a suspended license. Following the official procedure, Riley’s vehicle was to be impounded. Before his vehicle could be towed away though, the officer must go through and search

Factual History: In Los Angeles, California during the month of October and year of 2009, Abel Lopez was attacked and robbed by a man with a knife, he later identified as Walter Fernandez. During the confrontation between Lopez and Fernandez, Fernandez informed Lopez the territory in which Lopez was ruled by the “Drifters” After Lopez placed a call to 911, a few minutes after the attack, police and paramedics arrived on the scene. Two Los Angeles police officers, Detective Clark and Officer Cirrito, drove to a nearby alley that was often contained members of the Drifters gang. Here in the ally, a witnesses told them that the suspect was in an apartment in a house located off the

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

Throughout an 18-hour period on October 26, 1989, the appellant Marc Creighton, a companion Frank Caddedu and the deceased Kimberley Ann Martin consumed a large quantity of alcohol and cocaine. The afternoon of the following day on October 27, the three planned to share a quantity of cocaine at Ms. Martin’s apartment. The evidence and later testimony indicates that all of the members involved are experienced cocaine users. The appellant acquired 3.5 grams (“an eight-ball”) of cocaine; he did not try to determine the quality or potency of the cocaine before injecting it into himself and Frank Caddedu.

On the fourth of July in 1776 the United States became an independent nation. At that point in time, the foundation for a formal legal system was put into place. One of the oldest sources of law is the common law, which dates back to the colonial days. In the case of Davis v. Baugh, the common law rule was used in the first court trial. Common law refers back to precedent cases of similar disputes and assists the judge in making a decision after comparing both cases. Utilizing this ruling to resolve disputes in court is very helpful because it provides uniformity in court. This rule also provides an expectation of what the verdict will be based off the prior cases. Most importantly, common law allows the judge to remain neutral without the implication of personal bias on each case (Meiners, 2012, pp. 9-10).

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.

The vehicle exception to the Warrant requirement is also known as the Carroll doctrine, named after the Carroll v. United States case. The court then ruled that police did not need a warrant to search motor vehicles if they had probably cause. The Court’s ruling is based on the public use of the vehicle itself and, “the expectation of privacy with respect to one's vehicle is lower than that regarding one's home or office” (Kukura, 2016). Confusion comes into play when concerning whether or not packages, containers, or luggage that is inside the vehicle falls under the warrantless search. It can be compared to which comes first, the chicken or the egg? In California v. Acevedo the Court ruled that a container that is found in the vehicle

This essay is purposed for the evaluation of the provocative case, The State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, more commonly referred to as O.J. Simpson. On the 12th of June, 1994 the homicide of Nicole Simpson, O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife, occurred at her home. Reports of a body sprawled out the front of Nicole Simpson’s house were made through a 911 call. On arrival, police made the discovery of Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman’s dead bodies outside the house. The review of this investigation will be achieved through; Assessment of the key aspects of the process of investigation. Evaluation of the main investigative flaws made throughout the investigation. Identifying strategies to prevent these flaws from happening in

It is dangerous for anyone to drive while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. However, many semi-truck drivers do it anyway. It can also be dangerous to operate a truck while using certain prescription drugs.

“In 2008, police arrested an estimated 2.1 million persons under the age of 18. The majority of these juveniles (67%) were referred to juvenile court jurisdiction. The police used discretion to handle and release a portion (22%) of these youths” (Lopez 2016). That means that 273,000 juveniles were prosecuted and punished as adults, some even receiving life in prison. This begs the question should juveniles, regardless of offense, be tried as adults?

The legal consequences of drunk driving are also severe. The more a person drinks, the more their ability to make important decisions wear down and becomes impaired. After even just one drink a person can lose the ability to operate a vehicle. At certain parts in the state of intoxication, it becomes illegal to drive a car and if you get caught it can possible lead to fines, or even imprisonment. The legal limit of alcohol you can consume changes from state to state, but the penalty of driving under the influence is always severe. Getting arrested and maybe being forced to sleep in a drunk tank is just some of the problems you also have to carry the humiliation and the shame of being caught and that person might just end up with their name written up in the local news paper. Alcoholism is a disease and it can make

Driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol is one of the most dangerous things you can do. There is a mass of research evidence to show that driving performance and reaction times are seriously affected by alcohol. Our law in Georgia states, “that it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle if your blood alcohol concentration (BAC) exceeds .10%. Georgia observes a "per se" law. (Craft)