Explore BrainMass
Share

Explore BrainMass

    Supreme Court Cases

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    1) Using the attached reading "question 1"
    Brief the facts of the case and assume your boss is seeking your opinions as noted in the Critical Legal Thinking, Ethics, and Contemporary Business; argue both sides of all three issues.

    2) Using the attached reading "question 2"
    Brief the facts of the case and assume your boss is seeking your opinions on the use of roadblocks and how do some states conduct 4th Amendment supported roadblocks. Argue both sides of all issues.

    3) Using the attached reading "Question 3"
    Read Sections 5.3 Supremacy Clause (p. 105); 6.2/6.4 Duty and Causation and Design Defect (p. 127); 7.5 Bribery (p. 152-153); 8.6 Trademark (p. 177-178).
    Check the decisions of the highest appellate courts for each fact pattern.
    Brief the facts of the case and assume your boss is seeking your opinions on whether each of the four subjects affect business in the United States and if so, provide the worst and best case scenarios.

    4) Using the attached reading "Question 4"
    Brief the facts of the case and assume your boss is seeking your opinions on the 3 questions found at the end of Section 7.9. Argue both sides of all issues.

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 10, 2019, 8:04 am ad1c9bdddf
    https://brainmass.com/business/business-law/supreme-court-cases-606933

    Attachments

    Solution Preview

    1) Using the attached reading "question 1"
    Brief the facts of the case and assume your boss is seeking your opinions as noted in the Critical Legal Thinking, Ethics, and Contemporary Business; argue both sides of all three issues.

    The facts of the two cases are as follows, in Kentucky vs. King, officers were attempting to arrest a fleeing suspect who had sold narcotics to an undercover officer, the suspect briefly was able to elude the officers to the extent that he was able to arrive at a place within the complex with two adjacent apartments wherein one apartment was on the right and the other on the left. Upon hearing a door slam, the officers reached the two apartments and smelled marijuana coming from the apartment on the right, they subsequently announced that they were police, heard movement, suspected that occupants were attempting to destroy drug evidence, and subsequently forcefully opened the door. The original suspect wasn't found in this apartment, as he was later found in the apartment on the left, but suspect "King" and other occupants were found smoking marijuana and with drugs and cash such as cocaine. King challenged this arrest based upon the argument that it was an illegal search, but the trial court ruled that exigent circumstances allowed the officers to arrest the suspects. The Kentucky Supreme Court overturned the lower court's decision, which was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sided with the trial court and reversed the Kentucky Supreme Court decision.

    The difficulty associated with determining whether exigent circumstances is that whenever police are made privy to criminal action to no fault of their own, this allows police to forgo the fourth amendment protections afforded to citizens of the United States. In this case, a citizen, in their own apartment, who wasn't being pursued by the police, was subsequently arrested and sentenced to 11 years in prison because the police went to the wrong apartment after smelling marijuana while searching for a suspect who had eluded them and went to the adjacent apartment. Because police had probable cause to believe that criminal activity was occurring, and because they were in pursuit of a different suspect, this allowed them to search the premises despite not even initially seeking Mr. King. It isn't very difficult for officers to claim exigent circumstances as if it were, Mr. King would not be serving 11 years in prison after police erroneously barged into his residence seeking a different suspect, ...

    Solution Summary

    The expert examines supreme court cases. Brief facts of the case are examined to provide critical legal thinking.

    $2.19