Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEBOR, LEOBR, or LEOBoR) is a set of rights intended to protect American law enforcement personnel from unreasonable investigation and prosecution arising from conduct during the official performance of their duties, through procedural safeguards. [1]
Third, as the Solicitor General points out, there is available a set of “substitute procedural safeguards,” Mathews, 424 U.S., at 335, 96S.Ct. 893, which, if employed together, can significantly reduce the risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty. They can do so, moreover, without incurring some of the drawbacks inherent in recognizing ...
The shield law is currently codified in Article I, section 2(b) of the California Constitution and section 1070 of the Evidence Code. [1] Section 1986.1 of the California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) supplements these principal shield law provisions by providing additional safeguards to a reporter whose records are being subpoenaed. [2]
For instance, the Speedy Trial Act prioritized criminal matters, Supreme Court rulings have expanded criminal defendants’ procedural safeguards, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure’s ...
Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958), was a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the State of California's refusal to grant to ACLU lawyer Lawrence Speiser, a veteran of World War II, a tax exemption because that person refused to sign a loyalty oath as required by a California law enacted in 1954.
Shipley, David E. Due Process Rights Before EU Agencies: The Rights of Defense Article discussing the procedural safeguards that have been recognized in the EU and the parallels between procedural due process in the United States and the rights of defense in the EU. Sudbury Valley School (1970). Due Process of Law in School [broken anchor]. A ...
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that individuals have a statutorily granted property right in Social Security benefits, and the termination of such benefits implicates due process but does not require a pre-termination hearing.
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. 1 (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held by a 5–4 vote that a 2017 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and ...