Find all the Laws and Acts of San Andreas in this forum.
Also contains the full Penal Code to list all crimes and punishments.
Also contains the full Penal Code to list all crimes and punishments.
Moderator: Senior Lead Admins
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Wannabe Don
- Posts: 1001
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2014 2:21 pm
- Ingame name: Barrett
- Location: the omega
Real life cases accepted in San Andreas have been moved to this thread: viewtopic.php?f=495&t=562738
Marbury v. Madison: Establishes that the court has the power to perform judicial review on all laws and legal actions for federal and state constitutionality, relative to these laws referenced and all laws passed by the state legislature.
Civil Rights Act of 1960 and its subsequent later, associated legislation: Establishes the precedent of a concept over civil rights, Title IX, discrimination, civil rights, etc. The notion that businesses can deny service based on such discrimination is illegal.
Mapp v. Ohio: Establishes that evidence collected illegally, without probable cause, without permission, or without a warrant cannot be used in a court of law.
Miranda v. Arizona: Establishes that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney.
Terry v. Ohio: Establishes that police have a right to reasonably search individuals for their own safety. i.e. to ensure no weapons are on the person.
Tennessee v. Garner: Establishes that police have a right to use deadly force on an individual who, when fleeing, is reasonably believed will cause further harm to others in the process. For example, a person who had committed murder or attempted murder and is fleeing on foot or by vehicle.
Whren v. United States: Establishes that any traffic offense committed by a driver is a legitimate legal basis for detaining that individual in a traffic stop.
Prado Navarette v. California: Establishes that police, when acting upon information provided by an anonymous tip, do not need to personally verify the existence of ongoing criminal activity
Illinois v. Caballes: Establishes that a dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Rodriguez v. United States: Establishes that absent reasonable suspicion, officers may not extend the length of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff, but may call a K9 unit if the unit arrives before the traffic stop is terminated.
United States v. Place: Establishes that a sniff by a police dog specially trained to detect the presence of narcotics or firearms is not a "search" under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, because the sniff of a dog is sui generis, intended to reveal only the presence or absence of narcotics or firearms.
Gideon v. Wainwright: Establishes that the DOJ must provide in some form free legal counsel to anyone who wishes to file a criminal suit to dispute an arrest.
Heien v. North Carolina: Establishes that a police officer who stops a car based on a reasonable though mistaken understanding of the law does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Pennsylvania v. Mimms: Establishes that a police officer may order an individual out of his or her car following a traffic stop and may subsequently conduct a pat-down to check for weapons.
Michigan State Police v. Sitz: Established that the impact of checkpoints on drivers, such as in delaying them from reaching their destination, or checking their ID was negligible, and that the brief questioning to gain "reasonable suspicion" of a road law violation similarly had a negligible impact on the drivers' Fourth Amendment right from unreasonable search, and was therefore constitutional.
Kastigar v. United States: Established that the government may compel testimony from an unwilling witness who invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by conferring immunity from use of the compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom in subsequent criminal proceedings.
Garrity v. New Jersey: Established that where police officers being investigated were given choice either to incriminate themselves or to forfeit their jobs under New Jersey statute on ground of self-incrimination, and officers chose to make confessions, confessions were not voluntary but were coerced, and Fourteenth Amendment prohibited their use in subsequent criminal prosecution in state court.
Glik v. Cunniffe: Establishes that a citizen has the right to film public officials in a public place; the public's right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press.
New York Times v. Sullivan: Establishes that a publication criticizing a public figure must demonstrate "malice" or "malicious intent" or untruthful statements to be guilty of libel. A publication is entitled to criticize and expose public or private matters in a public figure's life. Anyone who is a senior official in a state agency or government office is considered a public figure.
Peruta v. San Diego County (CA-9): Establishes that 'may-issue' licensing is permissible under the 2nd amendment, and that a state government may deny a firearms license for failing to meet specific criteria set forth by said state, or its counties and municipalities.
Graham v. Connor: Establishes that an objective reasonableness standard should apply to a free citizen's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of his person
Berghuis v. Thompkins: Establishes that a suspect's silence during interrogation does not invoke his right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona. The invocation of that right must be unambiguous, and silence is not enough to invoke it. Voluntarily and knowingly responding to police interrogation after remaining silent constitutes a waiver of the right to remain silent, provided that a Miranda warning was given and the suspect understood it.
Kentucky v. King: Establishes that warrantless searches are permitted in Exigent Circumstances such as that a threat to life is imminent (Injured person, sounds of violence, weapons) or there's an imminent threat to the preservation of evidence (shredding documents while waiting on a warrant). It always requires a Knock and Notice by Law Enforcement prior to entry.
The Healthcare Insurance Portability and Accountability Act: Establishes that private information of customers and patients may exist online but requires proper safety standards and privacy regulations. information cannot be extended from patient-doctor confidentiality and professional-client confidentiality except in cases that can lead to the harm of others (i.e. at-risk for self-harm or harming others.).
Brendlin v. California: Establishes that automobile passengers are "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when the car in which they are riding is held at a law enforcement traffic stop.
Other information not specifically guaranteed by Supreme Court jurisprudence or real life statutes but accepted, at the discretion of the courts, as fundamental principles of American common law (e.g. principles of contract law, property law, business law, etc.).
Formerly SA Lieutenant Governor, Senate Majority Leader, GOP Leader, Judge
<< Ted: I don't fuck around, comprende? Gun, gun, loaded. Bang, bang. You dead. >>
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users