Ohio v. Robert Robinette 519 U.s 33; 1175 Ct. 417; 136 L.Ed.2d 347; 1996 U.S LEXIS 6971; 65 U.SL.W. 4013; 148 A.L.R. Fed 739; 96 Cal Daily Op. Service 8278; 96 Daily Journal DAR 137361; 10 Fla L. Weekly Fed. S200 Also cited Ohio v. Robinette at state level 73 Ohio St. 3d 650; 1995-OHIO-162; 653N.E.2d 695; 1995 LEXIS 1872 Judicial History: Robert D. Robinette was pulled over on August the third of 1992, the officer was Deputy Newsome. He was pulled over for doing sixty nine miles per hour in a forty five mile per hour zone, in a construction zone on Interstate 70 in Montgomery County Ohio. After getting Robinette’s driver’s license and finding that Robinette had no prior violations, Newsome returned to the car and asked him to exit the vehicle
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.
202 U.S. 101; 26 S. Ct. 588; 50 L. Ed. 949; 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1522. Date Accessed: 2013/12/04. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
On September 4, 1958, Dollree Mapp’s was convicted in the Cuyahoga County Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Mapp v. Ohio - 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). On March 29, 1961, Dollree Mapp v. Ohio was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States after an incident with local Ohio law enforcement and a search of Dollree Mapp 's home (Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). In the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment protects and prohibits all persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, can evidence obtained through a search that was in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights still be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This is the issue that will be thoroughly examined in the landmark case of Dollree Mapp v. the State of Ohio (henceforth
Ashton, John. "KENEDY, MIFFLIN." 15 June 2010. Handbook of Texas Online. Web. 5 May 2014. .
Mapp v. Ohio Supreme Court Case in 1961 is historically significant as it was a turning point that changed our legal system by extending the exclusionary rule that existed at the federal level to include state courts. The exclusionary rule prevents the use of evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure, without a warrant, to be use against the defendant in court. Before this case, each state decided whether to adopt the exclusionary rule. At the time of this case, twenty-four states were not using the exclusionary rule. The decision of this case meant that all stated needed to comply with the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio is an important case as
By Larry J. Sabato. Longman Pub Group, 2006. Web. 2 Mar. 2011. http://wps.ablongman.com/long_oconnor_ag_8/33/8498/2175617.cw/content/i n dex.html Poole, Chris. "
On the evening of September 21, 1977, the alleged victim in the case, known as Pat, was out at a high school alumni function, where she met up with several friends. They decided to go to Fells Point to have a few drinks. While en route, Pat stopped to phone her mother who was watching her child to inform her that she would not be out much longer. Once at Fells Point, they went to the bar and had approximately one drink. Pat and her girl friend, Terry, walked two blocks to an additional bar. This is where Pat met the defendant, Edward Rusk. A conversation ensued between the two of them. It was reported that their conversation covered the subject of them both being separated from their spouses and having children. Rusk is reported to have asked Pat for a
ed. Kelly J. Mays. 11th ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2013. 591-594. Print.
New York: Greenhaven, 2005. 162-68. The. Print. The. Solley, Bobbie A. & Co.
105 S. Ct. 733; 83 L. Ed. 2d 720; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 41; 53 U.S.L.W. 4083
Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.
The case of the State of Florida vs. Chad Heins happened in 1994 in Mayport, Florida. It was on April 17, 1994 that Tina Heins, who was pregnant at the time, was found stabbed to death in her apartment. She shared an apartment with her husband Jeremy Heins and Jeremy’s brother Chad Heins. At the time of the incident Jeremy Heins was on a ship because he worked in the navy but Chad Heins was at the apartment. Before the incident happened Chad Heins, the defendant, who was nineteen at the time, used his brothers license to buy alcohol at a strip club near the apartment. After that Chad Heins had went to another bar where his brothers license got confiscated. He left the bar around 12:45 a.m. and went back to the apartment. He then washed his
[9] Section 17 (3) (d) s. 22 (1)(b) of the C (S) A 1995, section 30 of
New York: McGraw Hill, 1995 P# 4, 7, 102, 103, 104, 107, 111, 114, 120, 123, 130, 132, 139