The actuality of the case of State v. Stewart consist of a variety of mental, physical and emotional abuse in which Peggy Stewart had been “pushed” in her own mind to kill her husband to escape from his toxic and cruel behavior. As a result, the facts of the case are a wide variety that contributed to Peggy’s “imminent danger” state of mind when deciding whether her actions were truly self-defense. These include the abuse at hand, physiological trauma that Peggy experienced, and professional opinions about Peggy’s actions. An important factor of the case is Peggy Stewart’s significant abuse by her husband, Mike. Additionally, Mike’s abuse was not only to Peggy; but also to her daughter, Carla.…
The second case featured a man, Brima Wurie, who was arrested after a couple of police officers caught him in the middle of a drug deal. The officers seized two of Wurie’s cell phones and brought him back to the police station. Wurie’s flip phone kept receiving a call from the same number and the officer’s tracked it back to his apartment, where they “215 grams of crack cocaine and a loaded firearm.” Wurie was kept for drug and firearm charges that wouldn’t have been discovered if not for information presented by his flip phone during the warrantless search. The District Court denied Wurie’s request, which asked for the evidence obtained through the search to be thrown out, and then he was convicted.…
Furlow, 04-CV-5887 Our File No. 5-987 Statement of Facts: John Brown sued his dentist, Dr. Thomas Furlow, claiming he was injured as a result of Dr. Furlow’s failure to extract an infected tooth on August 3. John Brown ignored Dr. Furlow’s recommendation to return because his tooth was infected. Mr. Brown then went on vacation and while on vacation he passed out due to infection, pain, and the infection spreading. Mr. Brown incurred medical expense and loss of wages. Furlow was served with a complaint on March 1.…
Case Brief # 3 Fernanda Sbordone LEG110 12/5/2016 Instructor: Ms. Roland Arizona v. Evans Citation. 514 US 1 (1995)DOCKET NO . 93-1660 .Arizona Supreme Court.…
In the case of State v. Evans, 671 N.W.2d 720, (2003). , we see the distress of the victim that suffered from both harassment and stalking from her predator for a period that span more than three years (Brody and Acker, 2010). The harassment aspect that Hubert Evans summited the victim, Rebecca Arnold, to started out at a very slow rate with it become more intense and leading to stalking over years leading to the arrest of Mr. Evans and criminal conviction for harassment and stalking (Brody and Acker, 2010). The criminal charges were heard by a judge and jury where Mr. Evans gained a criminal conviction for the charges that he faced in the trial. The criminal conviction of Mr. Evans lead to his appeal to the State of Iowa Appeals court to evaluate the case as it relates to the state statute for harassment and stalking (Brody and Acker, 2010).…
During the search, police found things like a Uzi machine gun, a .38 caliber revolver, two stun guns, and a handcuff key, but did not find the supposedly stolen stuff. Police Officers did confiscate the weapons while in search for the stolen items and used it in court. So therefore his fourth amendment was violated. The 4th amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. " This action performed by the police officers reminds me of the supreme court case, Mapp V. Ohio.…
In the Walker Vs. Ohio case, I am here to argue the side of Ohio case. This case is about how the Walker’s were charged and convicted of reckless homicide of their newborn baby. The baby was born sick with a blood infection which could be easily treated with antibiotics. Instead of seeking medical treatment for the baby, the parents decided to use religious beliefs and pray to cure the infection.…
Cindy Cedeno Law 212 Prof. Consumano 10-14-2016 Case Brief. Title and Citation: Arizona V. Gant 556 US. 332 Facts of the Case: Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license, He was handcuffed and locked in the back of Arizona police car. As a result, Officers searched Gant's car and found a gun and a bag of cocaine in a pocket of a jacket located in the back seat of the car. Gant was arrested and charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, and narcotic drug for sale.…
When the privacy of students comes into question there are mixed responses, especially when it comes to the contents of a student’s bag. From the landmark supreme court case TLO v. New Jersey, the privacy students have in school has inevitably come into question. Whether TLO or New Jersey was right, this court case changed the way we look at students and their privacy. Some may argue that students have no privacy in school while others may think they have too much. Has the Supreme Court already decided where they stand on this hot button topic?…
In the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines, the Tinkers were suing because they believed that their school violated their first amendment right to freedom of speech. This case was decided in 1969 under the Warren Court with a 7-2 decision. Three of the Tinker children and one of their friends wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. Just before the children did this, the school made a rule against protesting the Vietnam War. When the children went to school with the black armbands on, they were suspended.…
The case Terminiello v. Chicago was first introduced in the State trial courts in Illinois where it was affirmed. Then it was later on appealed into the Illinois State Supreme Courts where they ruled in a conservative position based on the affirmation decision in the Trial courts (Insidegov). The petitioners of the court included the people who protested. The parties that were being sued in this case were the town, city, and the government of Chicago (insidegov).…
Roe v. Wade was not the first point in history abortion was discussed. Prior to the court case, many states, and eventually the Supreme Court, ruled on the constitutionality of state laws which preluded Roe v. Wade. In 1879, a Connecticut law was enacted stating that any one person who attempted through medical means to prevent conception of a child should “be fined not less than forty dollars or imprisoned no less than sixty days” (“Griswold v. Connecticut…”). This meant that any form of contraceptive (i.e. birth control, condoms, and abortion) was illegal in the eyes of the Connecticut state court. In 1939, the Waterbury Maternal Health Center in Waterbury, Connecticut was raided by police for their practice which helped “married women who could not afford private…
DAVID FALLSBAUER’S RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WERE VIOLATED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS, BECAUSE WHEN FACED WITH AMBIGUITY REGARDING THE A THIRD PARTY’S CONSENT TO SEARCH THEY FAILED TO MAKE A FURTHER INQUIRY. BY DOING SO, THE OFFICERS VIOLATED DAVID’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY. The primary question before this Court is whether police officers must make a further inquiry when faced with an ambiguity regarding a third party’s consent to search. The Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals have taken different views when deciding the actions a police officer must take when faced with an ambiguity pertaining to third party consent. It is crucial to our society that a person’s right to privacy is protected and able to be exercised.…
The identification of several significant facts in the case of Tennessee v. Garner calls into question the use of deadly force in the “unattempted” apprehension of an unarmed suspect. The first such fact is the admission and later verification by Hymon that Garner was unarmed. A second fact is that the suspect was fleeing in the opposite direction (away) from Officer Hymon and in a position as not to cause the officer to be in fear for his life. Additionally, Officer Hymon with the aid of his flashlight was able to observe that the suspect was a minor and of slender statue (observing his hands and face) posing no threat to him or others.…
Introduction Stop and frisk tactics have been used to preserve public safety and officer well-being. A stop and frisk is a non-intrusive police stop and pat-down based on the reasonable suspicion in relation to a crime that has happened, will happen, or is in the process of being carried out (Cornell Law School, 2017). Stop and frisk situations are highly common and the reported instances have increased by approximately 7% annually (Hovhannisyan, 2006). However, the approach is highly controversial because it operates primarily on officers' perceptions and opinions, which opens the door to personal prejudices dictating the usage. This executive summary includes the advantages and disadvantages involved in stop and frisk procedures as well as the constitutionality and recommendations to improve the approach.…