Andrea Vs Clarence Case Study

Tennessee v. Garner Assignment Tennessee v. Garner is a case where police used deadly force. This is a great case to examine when deadly force should or should not be used. The Fourth Amendments states, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. This right should not be violated. “Seizure under the fourth amendment would only be reasonable if the suspect posed a threat to safety of police officers or the community at large” Tennessee v. Garner (1985.)

 In Caulfield the court concluded the defendant had no absolute right to enter his brother’s house because he had moved out two weeks ago and could no longer be considered an occupant. • Analysis o Dale Hawthorn’s Case  Hawthorn’s case is similar to Sears, Davenport, and Caulfield as Hawthorn had quit occupying the apartment for some time (more than several days) before committing the offense. Additionally, all three of those cases find no absolute right though each had some familial type relationship with those occupying building.  Davenport is also similar because just like Hawthorn, the defendant in Davenport willingly gave up his key to the domicile.

I. QUESTION PRESENTED What is the impact of Mr. Roberts and Ms. Turley holding their new home as joint tenants in a community property state? II. SHORT ANSWER By opting to hold the new home as joint tenants in a community property state, the couple will realize the higher level of creditor protection afforded by a joint tenancy but will lose the significant tax benefits afforded under the community property tax regime.

On the date August 2nd 2005, regarding the court case: Mount Laurel Township vs. MiPro Homes L.L.C., the Appellate Division of Superior Court reversed the ruling of a trial Court. The trial court entered an injunction – preventing actions against MiPro Home’s 16.3-acre parcel and dismissing Mount Laurel’s case. The ruling by the Appellate Division of Superior Court was later affirmed by the New Jersey Supreme court, and the United States Supreme Court. The Appellate Division adjudicated that Mount Laurel Township had not improperly exercised eminent domain in condemning the 16.3-acre parcel. Was Mount Laurel justified in confiscating private land because the municipality did not want a 23 single-home development on the MiPro site, and would

This detention was both unlawful and without the consent of Driver. There are two distinct reasons why Driver’s false imprisonment claim is true. First, there was a threat to his liberty by Merchant threatening to call the police. Second, although Merchant originally had shopkeeper’s privilege, this privilege only allows Merchant to detain Driver for a reasonable time period. First, Driver was detained.

Sally was interfering with the access to the building when she was sitting and therefore she broke the law. Sally had the right to hand out the leaflets and be there as long as she was not obstructing the access to any buildings.

The courts determined that Pringle’s confession was admissible and there was adequate probable cause to arrest Pringle. Ultimately Chief Justice Rehnquist determined the confession should be admitted and the conviction of Pringle should

In the case of Timothy Ivory Carpenter V. UNITED STATES Did the government overstep its bounds in Detroit without getting a probable cause warrant, and did the government violated the 4th amendment of Timothy Ivory Carpenter? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,but upon probable cause, the police have the right to searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That is the 4th amendment. So what are the facts of the case then? (“United States v. Carpenter.”

Question 4 (a): Did PC Williams have the power to carry out a search under s.1 PACE? According to (PACE Code, 1984), S.1 ss (1.1) states that ‘power to stop and search must be used fairly, responsibly with respect for people being searched and without discrimination.’ Therefore, referring to the facts of the case: ‘PC Williams’ thinks he recognises the youth as Patrick Jones based on the youth’s black scruffy looking and wearing a baseball cap. Added to that, his suspicion was based on the number of times that he has arrested Patrick Jones before for theft and burglary offences.’

Lennie v. Curly is an inciting incident because they both are opposite of each other. They are opposite of each other because in pages 63 – 64 Lennie was getting beaten up by Curly, but Lennie stopped Curly’s fist and broke it. Lennie acts like a baby but Curly acts like a grown up adult bully. Lennie is like a baby in an adult body. Lennie doesn’t know how strong he is and he doesn’t try to be mean and hurt people.

The case Foster v. Chatman is a very difficult and unpleasant case. The case highlights the embarrassing and disgraceful episodes of the United States’ history. Racism, discrimination and prejudice have occurred, since the inception of the country. The United States’ pledge of allegiance reads, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” This statement is a very strong declaration, when it is often said, it can lose its sticking meaning, however this pledge can be deceptive.

This was made of warrants, permitting officials to search for smuggled material within any suspected premises. James Otis was an Advocate-General, who protected the warrants when it became legal. Moreever, after the Boston merchants retained him as their council to oppose the writs before the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Otis refused the offer. Otis dictated a speech that lasted five hours, who was witnessed by John Adams. He based his case on the rights guaranteed in the “English Common Law.”

Terry and Chilton are taking turns walking past a store front on a fall afternoon in Cleveland, Ohio. They each pass the store six times and then meet with a third man- Katz. A nearby police officer- Officer McFadden, notices the odd behavior of the pair and conducts a stop and frisk of all three men, which reveals two concealed weapons. In the subsequent trial for the charges of carrying a concealed weapon, the prosecution filed a motion for the suppression of the recovered guns as evidence citing that the manner in which the evidence was obtained was unlawful and inadmissible in court as a result.

Purpose The next issue to be decided is whether Ms. Durand’s trespass on the Moore’s property included a “purpose” to commit a crime. The Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.12 states that the act of trespassing must be accompanied by,

The recent passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has left a controversially delicate 4-4 split within the Supreme Court betwixt the liberal and conservative minded remaining eight Justices. In the wake of this doubly devastating event, President Barack Obama has been forced into the predicament of deciding whether or not he should nominate a replacement for Scalia, a situation which has been worsened by the current status of an election year. Unsurprisingly, many Democrats have shown support for Obama’s choice to appoint a nominee himself, while many Republicans have voiced support for an alternative: allow Scalia’s vacancy to remain until the next president has been sworn into office and is able to make the nomination. Regardless of support or disdain for his decision, President Obama has chosen to nominate Merrick Garland as Justice Scalia’s replacement on the Supreme Court. The anticipated