Statement: Benjamin M. Harrington Statement of the incident that happen on April 11, 2016 with my co-worker Pramond Patel. On Monday April 11, 2016 at around 6:00 -7:30 a.m. I was in the process of getting into my county vehicle, which at the time was parked next to Mr. Patel’s county vehicle. Mr. Patel had backed his county vehicle into the parking spot with the back of his vehicle facing the building and I had parked my county vehicle the previous day with the front of the vehicle facing the building. Both driver sides of the vehicles were on the same side. Patel had parked next to me in the morning, since I don’t have a take home vehicle and he does. While I was getting into my county vehicle I accidently hit Mr. Patel’s county vehicle
with my laptop that was in my left hand. Mr. Patel never said anything when that happen, so I continue to get into my county vehicle and back out and left for a job assignment for that day. Mr. Patel does not communicate with me at all. I have tried in the past to talk to Mr. Patel about work related conversation and he will not talk to me. I have tried to have a work related relationship with Mr. Patel. After finding out that this recent incident was an issue with Mr. Patel, I would’ve liked to apologize if I caught him off guard when I accidently hit his county vehicle with my laptop. It was by no means intentional. I was just trying to get into my van. I would like to be able to resolve this incident and work with Mr. Patel in any way I can to do so. I have no issues with working or communicating with Mr. Patel at work. I have tried and proven that I can work with him, and help him out in any way I can. Mr. Patel will not communicate with me at all. For example, I have tried to talk to him about a signal that went into flash and he didn’t talk to and proceeded to walk out of the supervisor office where I had ask the question about the traffic signal. This made my troubleshooting process difficult because of the lack of communicate. I ‘am more than willing to work out this incident and move forward with a work related relationship with Mr. Patel.
On the above listed date and time, deputies arrived at Hampton County Medical Center, and made contact with the complainant regarding the above listed incident type. Deputies gathered the pertinent information needed to complete this report. The complainant and his mother wrote a voluntary statement. Photos were taken while at the Emergency Room. The complainant was issued a Victim’s Right’s Form along with a case number attached. Deputies attempted to make contact with the subject, no contact was made. Deputies cleared the call and resumed normal patrol duties.
A forty-six-year-old man named Lawrence M. Bradford had filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Syracuse, New York. Bradford claimed that police officers Chad D. Frederick and Shane M. Ryan entered his residence without a warrant, although his roommate Shara Bixby, let the officers into the house. Mr. Bradford said that the officers forced Shara Bixby into letting them into the residence after she had told police that he was not home. The two officers were there to arrest Mr. Bradford for his part in the assault of another man. Bradford pleaded guilty in Jefferson County Court in August 2013 to second-degree assault. Mr. Bradford and another man was accused of stealing money and property from Jeffrey Jewett in Watertown, New York, while striking him on the head and body, causing a cut above the victim’s
McLaughlin v. Heikkila is a case that involves Wilbert Heikklia and David Mc Laughlin who entered into an agreement involving eight parcels to be sold to Mr. Mc Laughlin by Mr. Heikklia. According to Cheeseman (2013), the facts of the case indicate that Mr. Mc Laughlin submitted offers to Mr. Heikklia for the purchase of three parcels and afterwards, McLaughlin submitted earnest-money checks and three printed purchase agreements to Heikklia. According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, McLaughlin himself never signed any of the agreements. However, his wife did sign two of the agreements and she initiated the third agreement on September 14, 2003. Then, two days later on September 16, 2003 Heikklia made changes to two of the agreements by increasing the cost of the parcels, and he changed the closing dates on all three agreements, including add a reservation of mineral rights to all three (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2005).
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.
The Case of R.V Machekequonabe Machekequonabe is charged with shooting and killing his foster father. The difficulty of this case revolves around the fact that his particular pagan Indian tribe believed in the existence of evil spirit wendigos which assume human form and pose a threat to their community. On one hand, there are rules against killing other humans, and on the other, Indian common law says that it is acceptable to kill wendigos (which the defendant believed he was doing). This essay will show how this conflict and ruling can be explained completely by Dworkin's theory of law and judicial reasoning.
On 01-01-17 at 0023 hours I was monitoring the radio and heard that Officer Harrell #3441 and Officer Thebeau #8402 were involved in a vehicle pursuit in the area of Fair Oaks Avenue and Corson Street. I responded to the above location to assist. They advised responding units that the suspect was involved in a traffic collision on the eastbound 210 Freeway Fair Oaks Avenue off-ramp.
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
In the 1996 Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans, the voters of the state of Colorado approved a second amendment to their state Constitution through a referendum, in order to prevent homosexuals from becoming a protected minority. Before the referendum occurred, many of the major cities in Colorado passed laws prohibiting people to be discriminated against based on their sexuality, including whether or not they are homosexual. The citizens of Colorado who disapprove of homosexuality then created a petition to put the second amendment to a vote, and won with a majority of 53% of the votes. Richard Evans, with the support of many others, took the amendment to court claiming it was unconstitutional, and should be removed from the constitution, going on to win in the Colorado Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Thursday, March 2, 2017, at 2:55 p.m., the investigator traveled to the following cities in the Riverside County area; Palm Springs, Cathedral City and to the Desert Hot Springs to conduct cold-calls with the witnesses who may have information about the Ronnie Curtis case. Each of the following witnesses, Ms. Mayla Padzik, Ms. Annette Reiz and Ms. Barbara have not returned any previous phone calls made to their listed phone numbers to secure their statements about claimant Ms. Curtis’s. In an attempt to locate and establish their identities to include their personal statements a thorough check was conducted through HUB’s services which additional addresses were discovered to follow-up with each one of the witnesses with this developed information.
I blocked in the vehicle in order to prevent the driver from leaving the area pending further investigation.
On 08/03/17, at approximately 2:54pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian with Franklin County Animal Care and Control (FCACC) was dispatched to 38 S Wheatland Ave on an injury-possible dangerous or vicious dog. I arrived at the location and saw a small terrier mix (black/brown) loose on the front porch of that location. I approached the location. I slowly approached the front porch, where I placed a leash on the small terrier mix. I knocked on the door. Caller Lisa Vanskle came outside and I asked if this was the dog that bite someone. She stated it was. I advised her that I would return after I placed the small terrier mix in my vehicle. I returned to the above location and spoke to Ms. Vanskle and her son (victim) Travis Vanskle. I asked
In short, it is a case of the petitioners that the deceased Mahendra Mukundrao Bansode was working as driver with respondent no.01 on his vehicle Ape auto rickshaw bearing registration no. MH-23-X-4372. On 18/07/2014 as per say of respondent no.01, the deceased Mahendra Mukundrao Bansode was proceeding in the said Ape auto rickshaw from Latur to Lokhandi Sawargaon. He was doing his work as per the instruction and directions of respondent no. 01. While coming from Latur to Lokhandi Sawargaon, when he reached near Selu Amba, at that time, suddenly one dog came in front of the auto rickshaw. The deceased tried to save the said dog and lost his control over the auto rickshaw. In the result, the said auto rickshaw turn turtle and the deceased
A standout amongst the most testing provincial concerns confronting the modem administrator is the manner by which to make and apply law to a different populace energized by dissimilar convictions. The way in which India applies law to its Muslim minority was brought to the front line of the political enclosure in the Indian Supreme Court case Mohammad Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum (1985). In 1975, Shah Bano, the girl of an Indian constable, was separated by her Muslim spouse and given an endowment of three hundred dollars, the absolute minimum needed by Islamic law. Absolutely devastated, she sued her previous spouse and, in 1985, the case arrived at the Indian Supreme Court. The Court decided energetic about Ms. Bano and ordered that her previous spouse pay her support of roughly twenty-three dollars a month .