News
[03/10]
Calif. jury recommends death for serial killer
[03/10]
Conviction vacated for Mass. man who ran over duck
[03/10]
Pa. woman's indictment shows evolution of terror
[03/10]
Son: Ohio State shooting survivor getting better
[03/10]
Ohio State shooter complained bosses were unfair
More...
Articles
When Miranda Warnings Are Required
Most Americans probably recognize the Miranda warnings when they hear them: “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, and if you can’t afford one, one will be appointed for you.” These well-worn turns of phrase are now taken for granted as an integral part of any arrest, and many would claim to “know their rights” simply because they can rattle off the list of Miranda warnings. But when are Miranda warnings really a requirement, and what rights do the warnings protect?
More...
Can the Police Legally Stop Me, Even if I Have Done Nothing Wrong?
The answer is yes. It is not against the law for one person to stop another in the street and ask him or her questions, and the same rules apply to police officers. They can approach you, ask you questions and even ask to search your belongings.
More...
|
|
Case Summaries
[03/09]
Zia Trust Co. v. Montoya
In an action for excessive force brought by family members of a man defendant-officer shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the court could not say that a van fifteen feet away, which according to the plaintiffs was clearly stuck on a pile of rocks, gave defendant probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others that would justify his use of force.
[03/09]
US v. Wise
Defendant's firearm possession sentence is affirmed where: 1) defendant's prior conviction under Utah law for failure to stop at the command of a police officer was a "crime of violence" under the Sentencing Guidelines; and 2) the district court erred in not assigning criminal history points for one of defendant's prior convictions, but that error did not invalidate defendant's sentence.
[03/09]
In re Victor L.
In a conviction of a minor for possession of specified illegal weapons, juvenile court's order placing the defendant on probation with various conditions is affirmed for the most part with the exception of: 1) the restrictions on defendant's right to associate with individuals disapproved of by his probation officer or his parents is unconstitutionally vague and will be modified to include a personal knowledge requirement; 2) restrictions on defendant's presence "where dangerous or deadly weapons or firearms or ammunitions exist" is unconstitutional as due process requires that the probationer be informed in advance whether his conduct comports with or violates a condition of probation; and 3) to the extent the second Internet condition prohibits any "use of" or "access to" an Internet-enabled computer, it conflicts with the other two conditions, thereby making the combination of conditions unconstitutionally vague.
[03/09]
Redd v. Wright
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising out of plaintiff inmate's confinement in tuberculosis hold following his refusal to submit to tuberculosis testing, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) prior precedent did not "clearly foreshadow" a holding that the testing policy, as applied in this case, violated plaintiff's Free Exercise rights; 2) it could not reasonably be said that defendants acted in violation of clearly established Eighth Amendment law by implementing the policy; and 3) it was not clearly established that plaintiff was entitled to some kind of notice that religious objectors could be exempt from the policy.
[03/08]
US v. Miller
Dismissal of defendant's petition for a writ of audita querela challenging a restitution order, arising from his conviction for conducting a monetary transaction with criminally-derived funds and evading income tax, is affirmed where: 1) if it still exists, the writ of audita querela can only be applied to rectify a judgment which, though correct when rendered, has since become infirm; and 2) since all parties to this case agree that the district court's restitution order was initially correct, and because the statute does not require the order to be modified every time a subsequent payment is made on a restitution obligation, there is no infirmity in defendant's judgment for a writ of audita querela to rectify.
More...
|
