...Diego County, Laura W. Halgren, J., of various crimes related to drive-by shooting, and he appealed based on his challenge to evidence found during police officers' warrantless search of data stored on his cell phone. The California Court of Appeal, 2013 WL 475242,[->0] affirmed. Second defendant was charged with drug- and weapon-related crimes, and the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Stearns, J., 612 F.Supp.2d 104,[->1] denied his motion to suppress evidence found during warrantless search of data stored on his cell phone, and defendant appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Stahl, Circuit Judge, 728 F.3d 1,[->2] reversed. Certiorari was granted. Holdings: The Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts[->3], held that: (1) interest in protecting officers' safety did not justify dispensing with warrant requirement for searches of cell phone data, and (2) interest in preventing destruction of evidence did not justify dispensing with warrant requirement for searches of cell phone data. Judgment of California Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, and judgment of First Circuit affirmed. Justice Alito concurred in part and concurred in the judgment in separate opinion. West Headnotes [1] Searches and Seizures 349 23 349[->4] Searches and Seizures 349I[->5] In General 349k23[->6] k. Fourth Amendment and Reasonableness in General. Most Cited Cases[->7] Ultimate touchstone of the Fourth...
Words: 24946 - Pages: 100
...20. People v. Relova Facts: 5 Feb 1, 1975 - Police searched the ice plant owned by Opulencia; they discovered electric wiring, devices and contraptions had been installed without necessary authority from city govt 6 Nov 24, 1975 - Asst. City Fixcal filed info against Opulencia for violation of a city ordinance which prohibits unauthorized wiring installations. 7 Opulencia pleaded not guilty and filed motion to dismiss on the ground that the crime had alrdy prescribed (offense charged was a light felony w/c prescribes 2 mos from discovery thereof.) 8 Lower court dismissed the case 9 Acting City Fiscal filed another info for theft of electric power 10 Opulencia filed Motion to Quash upon the ground of double jeopardy 11 Judge Relova granted motion and dismissed the case. 12 Motion for Recon denied, hence this appeal Issue: WON there was double jeopardy Ratio Decidendi: A person who was charged for violating a city ordinance for having installed a metering device to lower his electric bills which was dismissed for prescription of the offense may not be charged again for theft of electric power under the RPC Reasons: 13 The second sentence of Art. IV Sec. 22 embodies an exception to the gen. Proposition: the consti protection, against double jeopardy is available although the prior offense charged under an ordinance be different from the offense charged subsequently under a national statute such as the RPC, provided that both offenses spring from the same act...
Words: 23071 - Pages: 93
...BAR EXAMS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 2001 GEN TOPIC: RECEIVERSHIP SPECIFIC: REMEDIES Joaquin filed a complaint against Jose for the foreclosure of a mortgage of a furniture factory with a large number of machinery and equipment. During the pendency of the foreclosure suit, Joaquin learned from reliable sources that Jose was quietly and gradually disposing of some of his machinery and equipment to a businessman friend who was also engaged in furniture manufacturing such that from confirmed reports Joaquin gathered, the machinery and equipment left with Jose were no longer sufficient to answer for the latter’s mortgage indebtedness. In the meantime judgment was rendered by the court in favor of Joaquin but the same is not yet final. Knowing what Jose has been doing. If you were Joaquin’s lawyer, what action would you take to preserve whatever remaining machinery and equipment are left with Jose? Why? (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: To preserve whatever remaining machinery and equipment are left with Jose, Joaquin’s lawyer should file a verified application for the appointment by the court of one or more receivers. The Rules provide that receivership is proper in an action by the mortgagee for the foreclosure of a mortgage when it appears that the property is in danger of being wasted or dissipated or materially injured and that its value is probably insufficient to discharge the mortgage debt. (Sec. 1 of Rule 59). 2001 GEN TOPIC: WRIT May a writ of preliminary attachment be issued ex-parte...
Words: 37116 - Pages: 149
