Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), was a case decided by United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution under exigent circumstances.
The Chief Justice is always assigned to the Fourth Circuit as the circuit justice, due to Richmond's close proximity to Washington, D.C. [citation needed] The Fourth Circuit is considered an extremely collegial court. By tradition, the judges of the Fourth Circuit come down from the bench following each oral argument to greet the lawyers. [9] [10]
Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court decision that found Medical University of South Carolina's policy regarding involuntary drug testing of pregnant women to violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that the search in question was unreasonable. [1]
A college football player arrested for drunk driving despite no signs of intoxication can make his case to a jury that the officer violated his rights, a federal judge has ruled.
In criminal law, the intoxication defense is a defense by which a defendant may claim diminished responsibility on the basis of substance intoxication. Where a crime requires a certain mental state ( mens rea ) to break the law, those under the influence of an intoxicating substance may be considered to have reduced liability for their actions.
Jul. 5—Local jail bookings were light over the holiday weekend. Most bookings occurred the Friday prior to Independence Day. Most charges were drug- or court-related, as usual. Probation ...
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the sentence. Contributing: Francesca Chambers, Krystal Nurse, John Fritze, USA TODAY; Daniel J. Gross, Greenville News.
McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that section 841 of the Controlled Substances Act requires the government to prove that to be in criminal violation, a defendant must be aware that an analogue defined by the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act with which he was dealing was a controlled substance.