. One of the very distinct features of law, is how it can apply to a plethora of different areas. In addition, each of those areas has its own interpretation that can be either completely different or identical to another part. In the Pastrana v. United States (746 F.2d 1447) a plethora of new information was provided that showed the versatility of law, especially when it involves the United States government. The newly acquired scholarly information included the application of immunity to government employees under specific circumstances.
It was previously unknown that government employees and officials have a layer of protection that shields them from certain liabilities such as those encountered in the line of duty. It was discovered that
the protection from liability of government officials came as a necessity because of the line of work that the police and firemen would be constantly engaged it, as some of their actions take priority over others. By performing those tasks sometimes damage is caused in the forms of negligent torts, which can include acts such as property damage, physical injury and other types of loss. In the case, the defendant was seeking immunity and the plaintiff was stating that the actions of the defendant did not qualify him for total immunity as it was being used as a means of escape from liability. However, it was established in Harlow Et Al. v. Fitzgerald (457 U.S. 800) that the following was provided: ... government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. (Harlow, at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738.) Therefore, since the defendant was performing his duties while enacting the revocation of the plaintiff’s pilot’s license, it was found that he was not liable for the damages caused to the plaintiff that followed after. So it can be established, that as long as the government official that is performing his/her duties and his/her actions are "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.", it can be understood that there shall be no prosecution on the basis of liability of that government official. In conclusion the Pastrana v. United States case provided new understanding of immunity law when it pertains to the government officials on duty.
The conceptual foundation of the U.S. Constitution is that there is a checks and balance system within the government that was developed to ultimately protect the rights of the people. In Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati (1986), there is an ongoing string of rulings from multiple appeals, for multiple rulings, that derived from a single case. What is interesting to note is that the original charge in the case is not the same charge for the most recent ruling. The actual case that is being heard in the Supreme Court is for civil damages. Although the law is being followed in allowing for the checks and balances to take place, the history of this case took place over a period of nine years from 1977-1986. One could question the efficiency of public administration in delivering a timely decision. As each case reached a ruling, another appeal needed to be submitted for the new justification of the ruling. Many different actions were submitted for review based on the different findings for each new ruling. A mentioned previously, this process was completed over a nine year period, and in accordance
Fraud is one of Canada's most severe acts of financial criminality as the economic impact of this crime could potentially handicap an entire society. According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre Annual Statistic Report (CAFC), a report established to monitor fraud with the aid of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and Competition Bureau of Canada, it reported an annual loss of 74 million dollars affecting over 14,472 victims (Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, 2014). Given this alarming statistic, it is worrisome that we as a society still ignore or turn a blind eye towards those who commit fraud as seen in the low conviction (Canada Revenue Agency, 2014), and focus our efforts on petty thefts as seen with the high rate of convictions
Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon.
Ernesto Miranda grew up not finishing high school. He didn’t finish the 9th grade, and he decided to drop out of school during that year. He also had a criminal record and had pronounced sexual fantasies after dropping out of high school. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix in 1963. He had raped an 18 yr. girl who was mildly mentally handicapped in March of 1963. He was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. When he was found and arrested, and he was not told of his rights before interrogation. After two hours of interrogation, the cops and detectives had a written confession from Miranda that he did do the crimes that he was acquitted for. Miranda also had a history mental instability, and had no counsel at the time of the trial. The prosecution at the trial mainly used his confession as evidence. Miranda was convicted of both counts of rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. He tried to appeal to the Supreme Court in
"Schenck v. United States. Baer v. Same.." LII. Cornell University Law school, n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2014. .
" 2. The court said that it was difficult decide with the argument of executive privilege because there was no real claim to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets. 3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government.
According to the article of Brazill v. State district Court of Appeal of Florida written by Gross (2003) Brazill classmates claimed that he appeared to be angry during this time, but students calmed he was not crying or shaking meaning there were no kind of remorse. Brazill frustration began to grow when he wasn’t getting what he wanted and eventually he pulled the slide back onto his grandfather’s weapon while Grunow attempted to close the classroom door as he tried to protect the students and himself, Brazill pulled the trigger and Grunow fell to the floor, with a gunshot wound between the eyes (Gross, 2003). A school surveillance videotape of the hallway revealed that Brazill then had pointed the gun at Grunow for nine seconds before shooting
For instance, in the case that an assailant barges into an organization and launches an attack on the employees. The unarmed security guard will be unproductive, being, that he or she is unequipped with the proper equipment to impede such an attack. Moreover, an unarmed security doesn’t have the high level training, that a law enforcement officer or an individual with prior military background possess. That is to say, that such an individual only embodies a low degree of specialization or experience at best. Thus, leaving the organization exposed and vulnerable to such a horrific act of violence without an adequate contingency plan in place. Therefore, it is highly recommended that an organization acquires the services of an armed security agency. Now, we will scrutinize the last topic of this case assignment dealing with a ban imposed on
Despite their responsibility to be impartial to political and social influences, the Supreme Court Justices knew well enough that Congress aimed for President Clinton’s impeachment. The pressures from Congress and society for his trial urged the Court to speculate the extent of the president’s presidential immunity, a power of the president previously questioned in United States v. Nixon, 418, U.S., 683 (1974). This precedent made explicitly that “no person is above the law,” not even the president. From the unanimous decision in the case in discussion, it can be perceived that the Court did not want to be seen as the branch of government that would allow a president get away with serious sexual allegations regardless whether tried during office or
Smith, C. E. (2004). Public defenders. In T. Hall, U.S. Legal System (pp. 567-572-). [Ebscohost]. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook
The supreme court justices Ruth Bader, Clarence Thomas and Antoni Scalia are all very intelligent individuals they all had great academic and career success leading them to be given a spot on the court making them some of the most impactful humans in America. They all differ in how they do their job in their views or the way they present themselves to them media.
of law has proved to be confusing to both juries and judges due to the
Scarlett, T. (2001, April). Private employees of off duty police may be liable in Tennessee. Trial, v. 37 i. 4 p. 32
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.