The facts presented in State v. Fischer would lead a rational trier of fact to have reasonable doubt that Fischer knowingly possessed methamphetamine. The majority concedes to the fact that the State did not offer any direct evidence to establish the “knowingly” element of possession of methamphetamine. The defendant’s knowledge was not determined on the basis of his exclusive ownership or exclusive access to the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle was never identified; the passenger of the vehicle was never identified. Fischer possessing marijuana on his person and refusing to submit to a urinalysis likely because of the marijuana in his system is not enough for any rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
In 1989, plaintiff Joseph Benning was cited for a violation of § 1256 for operating a motorcycle without wearing approved headgear in Caledonia County, Vermont. The statue states that “No person may operate or ride upon a motorcycle upon a highway unless he wears upon his head protective headgear reflectorized in part and of a type approved by the commissioner.1 The headgear shall be equipped with either a neck or chin strap.1” The County State’s Attorney dismissed the citation because he deemed the statue vague and unable to establish the elements necessary to prosecute the crime.1 However, the plaintiffs filed suit against the state, seeking to have § 1256 declared unconstitutional.
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
Facts: On November 2006 the Miami-Dade police department received an anonymous tip that the home of Joelis Jardines was been used to grow marihuana. On December 2006 two detectives along with a trained drug sniffing dog approached Jardines home. At the front door the dog signaled for drugs, as well as the detective who smelled the marihuana coming from inside. Detectives then wrote an affidavit and obtained a search warrant that confirmed the growth of marihuana in Jardine’s home. Jardines was then charged for drug trafficking. Jardines then tried to suppress all evidence and say that in theory during the drug sniffing dog was an illegal search under the 4th amendment. The trial courts then ruled to suppress all evidence, the state appellate courts then appealed and reversed, the standing concluding that there was no illegal search and the dog’s presence did not require a warrant. The Florida supreme court then reverse the appellate court’s decision and concluded that a dog sniffing a home for investigativ...
This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.
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).
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.
The evidence presented to myself and the other juror’s proves that Tyrone Washburn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife, Elena Washburn. On March 12, 1979 Elena Washburn was strangled in the living room of her family’s home. Her body was then dragged to the garage, leaving a trail of blood from the living room to the place it was found. Her husband, Tyrone Washburn, found her in the family’s garage on March 13, 1979 at 1:45 A.M. When officer Dale Chambers arrived at the scene he found her lying face down in a pool of blood. The solid evidence in this case proves only one person, Tyrone Washburn, is guilty of murder.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision concluding that Smith et al. were using their religious beliefs and the First Amendment to condone their illegal drug use. In addition the Justices expressed the view that the law applied to the general public, not to just one religious group. Therefore, in a 6-3 decision, the Supr...
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults who were acting in privacy.
Based on “What, of This Goldfish, Would You Wish?”, “Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion”, and my own experience, our relationships with others define who we are by the feelings that arise when in a situation involving something personal. In the “What, of This Goldfish, Would You Wish?”, Yonatan goes around to people’s homes and interview the people for his documentary. He makes his way to Sergei’s house to ask him a questions. Sergei does not like strangers banging on his door, especially when they are asking him questions. “Sergei tells the boy, tells him in what he thinks is a straightforward manner that he doesn’t want it. Not interested. Sergei gives the camera a shove, to help make it clear. But the earring boy is stubborn”
The race is always a big part of any society, but it is probably a very critical subject in the American society. The United States is one of the most diverse countries in the world in terms of race, religion, culture, and other subjects. The United States passed by much racial inequality, and segregation, which was by-laws. But, when time passed, many of these laws were revised and new laws were held to ensure equality. The United States courts have experienced many cases regarding racial inequality in terms of education and admissions to the universities. The Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) is a very important and recent case because it was after many similar cases that affected the affirmative action policies in universities admission.
Cannabis, since its discovery, has been used for recreational and medical purposes. It was seen as a drug that was “safe” and did put the body at risk but benefited it. However, this is not the case anymore because the government under I Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970 law banned the use of the narcotic and has the right to persecute anyone who attains the substance. Nonetheless, the question is not whether the drug is “safe” to use but whether the States should have the power to regulate marijuana or the federal government should continue having the control over the drug. Since 1996, 23 states including Washington D.C have passed laws that have legalized the medical use of marijuana, yet the federal government does not protect or even recognize the rights of users or possessors. The debate over marijuana has picked up momentum and many would agree that all this uprising conflict can be traced back to the constitution and the flaws it presents. The constitution is blamed for not properly distributing the States and Federal powers. Although the federal government currently holds supremacy over marijuana, States should have the power to regulate the drug because under the 10th amendment the federal government only has those powers specifically granted in the constitution, Likewise the States have the right to trade within their own state under the Commerce Clause.
The problematic Kansas-Nebraska Act, as any reader of American history knows, drove Abraham Lincoln back into politics in 1854. Speaking of himself in the third person for a campaign autobiography in 1860 he claimed to have been "aroused as he had never been before," by the success of Stephen A Douglas’s legislation. He admitted in that brief sketch that his pursuit of a private life practicing law in Springfield, Illinois had "almost superseded his thoughts of politics" as a career. The threat of the resuscitation of the institution of slavery from its excruciatingly slow and crooked “course of ultimate extinction” that the founders envisioned for it, however, profoundly disturbed his silent confidence in the efficacy of their wisdom.
Despite the 1976 ruling by the federal government that marijuana has “no acceptable medical use”, sixteen states have passed medical marijuana laws that allow for patient use o...