Belanger v. Swift Transportation
Belanger v. Swift Transportation talks about how the public policy is certainly followed under the “Forbidden Five”. The forbidden five rule indicating that there are five fractions that can lead to immediate termination of its drivers. The information obtained from the “Data Website” in this case by Belanger appears too seen as if to be presenting free and local to the public by the U.S government. Belanger obtained information from a Government operated website and was penalizes for wrongful information by the Supreme Court’s rulings. This case I personally feel he researches the rule book and made sure he showed proof of his findings. The transportation handbook implicated otherwise and fired Belanger for the accident that occurred.
U.S v. LaGrou Distribution Systems
In this case Stewart was the president of LaGrou warehouse were frozen meat was stored. He had a building that he was well aware that had rodent …show more content…
Arizona
In this case it is very important to know the “Miranda Warnings” which states “anyone has the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and anything that you state can be used against you” (Miranda Warning, 2014). In this case Miranda v. Arizona simply implements that an 18 year old girl was raped at knifepoint. Miranda was taken into custody and was corruptive with the police interviewed for 2 hours gave a statement and confession. Throughout this process Miranda warning was never implemented upon arrest of the suspect. In this case the rights of the accused should have asked for a lawyer. Refusing to talk does not mean you have something to hide. However, it simply means that you will not be forced into answering any questions, reviewing any documents, or be intimidated by the higher authority which you may not be fully aware of the
Belanger v. Swift Transportation talks about how the public policy is certainly followed under the “Forbidden Five”. The forbidden five rule indicating that there are five fractions that can lead to immediate termination of its drivers. The information obtained from the “Data Website” in this case by Belanger appears too seen as if to be presenting free and local to the public by the U.S government. Belanger obtained information from a Government operated website and was penalizes for wrongful information by the Supreme Court’s rulings. This case I personally feel he researches the rule book and made sure he showed proof of his findings. The transportation handbook implicated otherwise and fired Belanger for the accident that occurred.
U.S v. LaGrou Distribution Systems
In this case Stewart was the president of LaGrou warehouse were frozen meat was stored. He had a building that he was well aware that had rodent …show more content…
Arizona
In this case it is very important to know the “Miranda Warnings” which states “anyone has the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and anything that you state can be used against you” (Miranda Warning, 2014). In this case Miranda v. Arizona simply implements that an 18 year old girl was raped at knifepoint. Miranda was taken into custody and was corruptive with the police interviewed for 2 hours gave a statement and confession. Throughout this process Miranda warning was never implemented upon arrest of the suspect. In this case the rights of the accused should have asked for a lawyer. Refusing to talk does not mean you have something to hide. However, it simply means that you will not be forced into answering any questions, reviewing any documents, or be intimidated by the higher authority which you may not be fully aware of the