Robinson Vs California Case Study

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.

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

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

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.

This suit is filed the ground of nuisance, on the claims that the Roger’s apartment is messy and causing the rodents and other insects to invade all the apartments in the building.The purpose of the suit is to enjoin the further operation of the rodents and other insects invading the apartments. This cases was upheld in the state California.

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

ARS 28-1381.A1: It is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, or vapor releasing substance if impaired to the slightest degree.

In the case of Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884), “the jury found Hurtado guilty of murder of Jose Stuardo at his trial and trial court sentence Hurtado to death” (Ingram p. 48). After the verdict was read, Hurtado through his defending attorney contest that the verdict was invalid because Hurtado under the Fifth Amendment has a right to a grand jury trial. However, the Supreme Court rejected Hurtado’s defense argument. Therefore, in this essay I am going to discuss the reason the Court decided the case the way it did and if the right to a grand jury indictment an essential of due process.

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