...Dissent of Terry v. Ohio Defending Justice Douglas’s Dissent of Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio is a landmark supreme court case that started on October 31st, 1963, in Cleveland, Ohio, when police officer Martin McFadden observed three men engaging in suspicious behavior. At first, two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, were taking turns pacing up and down Euclid Avenue, stopping to peer into a storefront, then congregating at the street corner. Later, a third party (Katz), met the two at the corner then left abruptly after brief conversation. Officer McFadden then confronted the three men, searched their outer garments under the suspicion of criminal intent, and found a pistol on Terry and another on Chilton. Terry’s defense argued the gun found on Terry was inadmissible in court as evidence, stating that his 4th Amendment right to protection from unreasonable search and seizures was violated. The court denied the defendants' motion on the ground that Officer McFadden, on the basis of his experience, "had reasonable cause to believe . . . that the defendants were conducting themselves suspiciously, and some interrogation should be made of their action." Purely for his own protection, the court held, the officer had the right to pat down the outer clothing of these men, who he had reasonable cause to believe might be armed. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed their appeal on the ground that no “substantial constitutional question” was involved (Kemp, David. (2012). Terry v. Ohio...
Words: 1036 - Pages: 5
...Defending Majority Decision of Terry v. Ohio Defending Majority Decision of Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio is a landmark supreme court case that started on October 31st, 1963, in Cleveland Ohio, when police officer Martin McFadden observed three men engaging in suspicious behavior. At first two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, were taking turns pacing up and down Euclid Avenue, stopping to peer into a storefront, then congregating at the street corner. Later, a third party (Katz), met the two at the corner then left abruptly after a brief conversation. Officer McFadden confronted the three men, searched their outer garments under the suspicion of criminal intent and found a pistol on Terry and a pistol on Chilton. Terry’s defense argued at trial the gun found on Terry was inadmissible as evidence. His defense states that his 4th amendment right to protection from unreasonable search and seizures was violated. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed their appeal on the ground that no “substantial constitutional question” was involved. The 4th Amendment protects U.S. citizens against arbitrary arrests. Furthermore, the 4th Amendment is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to privacy laws and many other criminal law topics. In the case of Terry v. Ohio, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the men were preparing to rob or steal from the stores;...
Words: 792 - Pages: 4
...Gideon v. Wainwright The Warren Court also reviewed the case of Gideon v. Wainwright which was a case that changed the history of criminal procedure. Clarence Earl Gideon was a man who believed that he deserved to have his voice heard after being denied a right to counsel when he was arrested for petty larceny and breaking into a poolroom in Panama City, Florida in June 1961. At trail Gideon ask for a lawyer to defend his case since he could not afford one himself. Unfortunately, his request was denied since under Florida law a lawyer could be provided only if the defendant was charged with a capital offense. Gideon had no choice but to represent himself and was found guilty. Gideon then filed a writ of habeas corpus, but it was denied. After forwarding his petition in 1963 The Supreme Court then agreed to review his case. Now, the Warren Court was faced with reviewing the issue of whether the state court violated Gideon’s right to a fair trial and due process of law which was protected by the Sixth and Fourteens Amendments. In a unanimous decision, the Warren...
Words: 774 - Pages: 4
...Kristen Fortin Kaplan University CJ:140 Introduction to Constitutional Law Professor Robert Winters February 22, 2014 Abstract: Pertaining to the differences between probable cause and reasonable suspicion within law enforcement can determine the difference between a legal search and seizure and police officers obtaining evidence in an illegal manner. Officers need to handle each situation when probable cause and reasonable suspicion is involved. Determining what is reasonable and what is not takes great skill, perseverance, comprehension of the law, and an innate intuitiveness on the part of the officer. The Fourth Amendment clearly defines the exceptions to the warrant requirement. There are several exceptions pertaining to a legal, valid search and seizure without a warrant. Officers must possess the specific, lawful knowledge pertaining to such events, and do so without violating any one’s constitutional rights. Within this essay I will define and discus the differences between probable cause and reasonable suspicion, as well what constitutes reasonableness. Also, I will discus four of the Fourth Amendment’s exceptions to the warrant requirement with several examples. Probable Cause: The Fourth Amendment guards the peoples right from unreasonable search and seizures, and stipulates that “no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause.” (Bill of Rights; The Fourth...
Words: 1507 - Pages: 7
...U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. CORTEZ, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) 449 U.S. 411 UNITED STATES v. CORTEZ ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 79-404. Argued December 1, 1980 Decided January 21, 1981 Based on their discovery of sets of distinctive human footprints in the desert, Border Patrol officers deduced that on a number of occasions groups of from 8 to 20 persons had been guided by a person, whom they designated "Chevron," from Mexico across an area of desert in Arizona, known to be heavily trafficked by aliens illegally entering the country. These groups of aliens proceeded to an isolated point on a road to be picked up by a vehicle; the officers deduced the vehicle probably approached from the east and returned to the east after the pickup. They also surmised, based on the times when the distinctive tracks were discovered, that "Chevron" generally traveled on clear nights during or near weekends, and arrived at the pickup point between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. On the basis of this information, the officers stationed themselves at a point east of the probable pickup point on a night when they believed there was a strong possibility that "Chevron" would be smuggling aliens. The officers observed a pickup truck with a camper shell suitable for carrying sizable groups pass them heading west and then observed the same vehicle return within the estimated time for making a round trip to the pickup point. The officers stopped...
Words: 4188 - Pages: 17
...SATYAM SINGH SECTION C 20141343 BA. LLB. 2014 TO: Faiz Tajuddin FROM: Satyam Singh DATE: September 16, 2015 RE: Robert Langdon v. Springfield College of Law (Lost/Mislaid Wallet) MEMORANDUM Question Presented This memorandum analyses whether Robert Langdon, a construction worker, working at the Springfield College of Law in Cleveland, Ohio, be entitled to the possession of the wallet found on top of a duct behind a wall as the finder of “lost” property or will Springfield be entitled to hold on to the money as being “mislaid”, and keep the recuperated amount once the applicable statutory time has passed? Brief Answer The Court is most likely to rule that the wallet was mislaid property and not lost property. The classification between lost property and mislaid property was established in Benjamin v. Lindner Aviation, Inc. and State Central Bank. “Property is lost when the owner unintentionally and involuntarily parts with its possession and does not know where it is,” whereas “Mislaid property is voluntarily put in a certain place by the owner who then overlooks or forgets where the property is.” There is substantial evidence for the wallet to be classified as mislaid property. The wallet was found on a duct behind a wall, which gives us an indication that that that the owner voluntarily put it there, and it is unlikely that the owner parted with it without the intention of doing so. Furthermore, the location and the manner in which the wallet was hidden,...
Words: 1379 - Pages: 6
...Linda Barron-Gronvold CCJS 234-Criminal Procedure and Evidence September 17, 2013 Warrantless Search & Seizure Memorandum To: Judge M. Pearson From: Linda Barron-Gronvold Re: Elliott Watson case – Marijuana Possession with Intent to Distribute Prosecution Date: September 17, 2013 Brief Summary: Elliott Watson was arrested for the possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute said illegal drug. Elliott Watson was stopped by Officer Timothy Johnson because of faulty mechanical problems of Elliot Watson’s vehicle, which was sputtering and stalling out, and the vehicle also fit the description of a vehicle, a sports coupe, that had earlier, was used to kidnap a three year old young girl, Wanda Jones, from her home. Based on the description of the kidnapping victims’ vehicle description and the kidnappers clothing and the vehicle mechanical problems of Mr. Watson’s vehicle, a Fiat sports coupe and clothing which fit the description of the kidnappers clothing as well, Johnson pulled vehicle over for a police “car stop”, based on the fact that Mr. Watsons’ Fiat Sports Coupe fit the minimal description of a vehicle used in a three year old child kidnapping that happened at 3: 00 A.M., Officer Timothy Johnson was patrolling the area where the kidnapping occurred and noticed that a Fiat Sports Coupe car was having mechanical difficulties: stuttering and stalling. Officer Johnson decided to pull the vehicle over and get the license and registration...
Words: 1315 - Pages: 6
...Case Brief CASE: Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) SUMMARY OF THE FACTS: Following an armed robbery, police obtained arrest warrants for both suspects. While executing defendant Buie’s arrest warrant at his home, he came out of the basement. An officer then conducted a search of the basement in case there was anyone else there that posed a danger to the officer’s safety. During this search the officer found the running suit that was worn at the time of the robbery. ISSUE: (1) Is probable cause that a danger exists required in order to conduct a protective sweep of a suspect’s home? (2) Are items found during a protective sweep allowed to be seized? APPLICABLE RULES OF LAW: The Fourth Amendment states that people are protected from...
Words: 384 - Pages: 2
...successful in having the wallet declared to be “lost property” as opposed to “mislaid” and would he be entitled to the money as the finder of the wallet? Brief Answer Robert Langdon will not be successful in having the wallet declared as a lost property and he will have no claim to the money in the wallet. According to the general rule if the property is not found in plain sight and is concealed by some external barrier or there was a substantial effort required to find it, then the property is considered to be mislaid as opposed to lost. This is on the grounds that the owner of the property deliberately hid it in a place where it could not be found easily as opposed to lost property where the owner unintentionally loses his property. In the case of mislaid property, the possession of the property goes to the owner of the premises where it was found. Whereas in the case of lost property, if the property is not claimed by the owner within 12 months, the finder has the claim to the lost property. In this case, the cash was found in a wallet covered up on top of a pipe behind a divider which obviously demonstrates that the cash was concealed deliberately which implies that the property would be considered as misplaced. So in this situation the cash would be given over to the college and Langdon would not succeed in his case. Statement of Facts Robert Langdon, a construction worker, is an employee for Mason and...
Words: 1599 - Pages: 7
...An Analysis of Current Whistleblower Laws: Defending a More Flexible Approach to Reporting Requirements Gerard Sinzdak' INTRODUCTION Sherron Watkins is regarded as a hero for her decision to blow the whistle on the illegal activities of her employer Enron.' Had Enron survived the resulting scandal, however, the company could have fired or otherwise retaliated against Watkins with legal impunity.'^ Under Texas's whistleblower law, employees of private employers receive legal protection against retaliation only if they report wrongdoing to an external law enforcement agency. Because Watkins reported her concerns only to Enron CEO Kenneth Lay, her actions did not meet Texas's strict report recipient requirement.' The Texas whistleblower law is not unique. Most state whistleblower statutes restrict the parties to whom a whistleblower may report in order to receive protection from retaliation.^ The majority of states, for example, protect only those employees' who file reports with external govemment bodies. In Copyright © 2008 Califomia Law Review, Inc. Califomia Law Review, Inc. (CLR) is a Califomia nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications. t J.D., University of Califomia, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), 2008. I would like to thank Professor Gillian Lester for her guidance and assistance with this Comment. 1. Richard Lacayo & Amanda Ripley, Persons of the Year, TIME, Dec. 30, 2002, at 30. 2...
Words: 4070 - Pages: 17
...BP From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is the latest accepted revision, accepted on 2 October 2010.Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the energy corporation. For other uses, see BP (disambiguation). For information on the oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon rig, see Deepwater Horizon oil spill. BP p.l.c. Type Public limited company (LSE: BP, NYSE: BP) Industry Oil and natural gas, alternative fuels Founded 1909 (as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company) 1954 (as the British Petroleum Company) 1998 (merger of British Petroleum and Amoco) Headquarters London, United Kingdom Area served Worldwide Key people Carl-Henric Svanberg (Chairman) Tony Hayward (CEO) Bob Dudley (Director, CEO (appointed)) Byron Grote (CFO)[1] Products BP petroleum and derived products BP service stations Air BP Aviation Fuels Castrol motor oil ARCO gas stations am/pm convenience stores Aral service stations solar panels Revenue US $246.1 billion (2009)[2] Operating income US $26.43 billion (2009)[2] Net income US $16.58 billion (2009)[2] Total assets US $236.0 billion (2009) Total equity US $101.6 billion (2009) Employees 80,300 (Dec 2009)[3] Website BP.com A 1922 BP advertisement.BP p.l.c.[4][5] (LSE: BP, NYSE: BP) is a global oil and gas company headquartered in London, United Kingdom. It is the third largest energy company and the fourth largest company in the world measured by revenues and is one of the six oil and gas "supermajors".[6][7] ...
Words: 11889 - Pages: 48
...administration of health insurance, and for other purposes. HIPAA Colloquial acronym(s) Enacted by the 104th United States Congress Citations Public Law Stat. Pub.L. 104–191 110 Stat. 1936 [1] [2] Legislative history [3] • • • • • • • • • Introduced in the House as H.R. 3103 [4] by Bill Archer (D-TX) on March 18, 1996 [5] Committee consideration by: House Ways and Means Passed the House on March 28, 1996 (267–151 Passed the Senate on April 23, 1996 (100-0 [6] ) [7] ) [8] ) and by the Senate on , in lieu of S. 1028 Reported by the joint conference committee on July 31, 1996; agreed to by the House on August 1, 1996 (421–2 [9] August 2, 1996 (98–0 ) Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on August 21, 1996 e v t [10] The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA; Pub.L. 104–191 [1], 110 Stat. 1936 [2] , enacted August 21, 1996) was enacted by the United States Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996. It has been known as the Kennedy–Kassebaum Act or Kassebaum-Kennedy Act after two of its leading sponsors.[11] Title I of HIPAA protects health insurance coverage for workers and their families when they change or lose their jobs. Title II of HIPAA, known as the Administrative...
Words: 7409 - Pages: 30
...The Supply Chain Management Processes Keely L. Croxton, Sebastián J. García-Dastugue and Douglas M. Lambert The Ohio State University Dale S. Rogers University of Nevada, Reno Increasingly, supply chain management is being recognized as the management of key business processes across the network of organizations that comprise the supply chain. While many have recognized the benefits of a process approach to managing the business and the supply chain, most are vague about what processes are to be considered, what sub-processes and activities are contained in each process, and how the processes interact with each other and with the traditional functional silos. In this paper, we provide strategic and operational descriptions of each of the eight supply chain processes identified by members of The Global Supply Chain Forum, as well as illustrations of the interfaces among the processes and an example of how a process approach can be implemented within an organization. Our aim is to provide managers with a framework to be used in implementing supply chain management, instructors with material useful in structuring a supply chain management course, and researchers with a set of opportunities for further development of the field. “Streamlining crosscompany processes is the next great frontier for reducing costs, enhancing quality, and speeding operations”. Supply chain management is increasingly being recognized as the integration of key business processes across the supply chain...
Words: 13007 - Pages: 53
...U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice APR. 04 Special REPORT Forensic Examination of Digital Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, DC 20531 John Ashcroft Attorney General Deborah J. Daniels Assistant Attorney General Sarah V. Hart Director, National Institute of Justice This and other publications and products of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice can be found on the World Wide Web at the following site: Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij APR. 04 Forensic Examination of Digital Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement NCJ 199408 Sarah V. Hart Director This document is not intended to create, does not create, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. Opinions or points of view expressed in this document represent a consensus of the authors and do not represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The products, manufacturers, and organizations discussed in this document are presented for informational purposes only and do not constitute product approval or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Justice. This document was prepared under Interagency Agreement #1999–IJ–R–094 between...
Words: 22743 - Pages: 91
...http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.library.ggu.edu/lnacui2api/delivery/Print... 1 of 1 DOCUMENT MATTCO FORGE, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent; MATEO MINGUEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ARTHUR YOUNG & COMPANY et al., Defendants and Appellants. No. B087488. COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE 52 Cal. App. 4th 820; 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 780; 1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 89; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 948; 97 Daily Journal DAR 1354 February 7, 1997, Decided SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] The Name of this Case has been Corrected February 26, 1997. Review Denied April 30, 1997, Reported at: 1997 Cal. LEXIS 2448. PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Super. Ct. No. C731746. Dion G. Morrow, Judge. DISPOSITION: The judgment is reversed as to Mattco's award of damages, except the portion that awarded Mattco out-ofpocket-expenses and interest thereon, which is affirmed. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant accounting firm sought review of the judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which found in favor of respondent client in jury verdicts on respondent's malpractice action following the trial court's ruling that to establish liability and damages respondent needed to show only that appellant caused respondent to suffer harm and that respondent's underlying action had value. OVERVIEW: Respondent client filed a malpractice suit against appellant accounting firm, alleging...
Words: 19366 - Pages: 78
