Case Laws (ONX) Flashcards
State V Roche
HELD: Tenants of a multi-unit apartment building do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of their building. Defendants argument essential boils down to common areas being within the “curtilage” of the tenant’s residences. Court finds that “curtilage” as a concept does not have applicability in the context of common areas in multi-unit buildings, as all persons—including law enforcement—have a legal right to enter the common areas. While the use of additional tools within the common areas may constitute a search under the fourth amendment, merely overhearing a conversation while passing through falls under plain hearing doctrine.
State v. Breaker #1534
HELD: Police do not need to apply for a search warrant to search “brown paper bags” present in an area that officers have a legal right to be, under the plain view exception. In this case, the fact that officers entered the premises under exigent circumstances and then brought that exigency under control does not impose a duty on officers to seek a warrant before searching any “brown paper bags” in the area. Searches of other containers on the premises would have required a warrant before searching.
State v. Lawson #2166 (Government Premises)
HELD: Doctors and Emergency Medical Services personnel are government employees that are employed and managed by the State of San Andreas. Therefore, Mt. Zonah Hospital is a government building.
State v. Reed #5622
HELD: Dumping, Crashing, or otherwise Abandoning a motor vehicle in the ocean, whether deliberate or accidental, constitutes littering under the law of San Andreas.
State v. Lawson #2166 (Trespassing)
HELD: Trespassing Statutes in San Andreas do not explicitly require a person to be formally trespassed from the premises before a charge may be issued. They merely require a person to be on the premises without a lawful reason or permission from the owner.
HELD: Seeking emergency assistance in a life-threatening situation, or rendering emergency assistance to a person in peril of life and limb, are both lawful reasons to enter both private or government premises without permission from the owner. Merely sustaining an injury without more, however, does not meet this threshold.
State v. Cobert #2226 (Reckless Evading)
HELD: The definition for Reckless Driving is necessarily included in the statute for Reckless Evading. The element of driving in a “reckless manner” under the statute is the manner defined by the Reckless Driving statute, which at the time of this trial referred only to driving with a wanton disregard for the safety of persons.
State v. Cobert #2226 (Reckless Driving)
HELD: Driving with a “wanton disregard for the safety of persons” requires there to have been bystanders actually put into peril by the driver’s conduct. The court finds that an objectively reasonable person standard does not work as a legal standard here, because an objectively reasonable person would likely consider most things drivers do in this city to evidence a wanton disregard for the safety of persons. This standard would thus cause the Reckless Driving charge to eclipse nearly all other statutory driving offenses.
State v. Moody et al #2213
HELD: Where police (1) are directed to a location due to a CAD alert indicating suspicious, an anonymous tip, a 911 call, or other alert which would tend to indicate the sale of drugs based on the training and experience of officers, and; (2) police present evidence in the form of a photograph OR testimony of suspicious handoffs by a citizen observed on location of the first, a police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her based upon the reasonable articulable suspicion formed by the combination of the above.
State v. Dios, Ibarra, Osadia, and Short #2220
HELD: 20 vials of Ketamine more than exceeds a felony amount of Ketamine, for the purposes of the intent to distribute element of felony possession. The “nearst neighbor” with which to draw a comparison at law to is Oxycodone, of which more than 3 bottles is a felony amount. As 20 vials far exceeds 3 bottles, being nearly 7 times the amount of its nearest neighbor, the Court is satisfied that a felony amount of Ketamine possession is present in this case. Court respectfully declines to draw an explicit line on where felony vs misdemeanor possession of Ketamine lies at the time of this case.
State v. Richard #2165
HELD: Brandishing of a firearm or non-firearm requires that a weapon be exhibited in a Rude, Angry, or Threatening manner. Legal analysis of this element does not end with whether any person was actually threatened, but whether an objectively reasonable person viewing the event would feel threatened by the Defendant’s conduct.
State v. Dios, Ibarra, Osadia, and Short #2220
HELD: Criminal Possession of a Handgun does not prohibit the carrying of firearms without serial numbers at the time of this trial. There was no legal requirement present in any of our legislation or criminal statutes that firearms must have a printed serial number on the frame. Additionally, there were no actual restrictions on the type or nature of firearms that a person is allowed to carry with a valid weapons license. The sole disposing issue in the law existing at that time was whether a person has a license to carry a firearm.
State v. Finch #2135
HELD: This Court finds that absent separate legal justification, no citizen of this State is under a duty to comply with questions posed by law enforcement. Independent legal justification can include being requested to identify oneself while under detainment or arrest, or a requirement to comply with lawful orders to surrender to a detention.
However, this court will not impose a duty of any citizen of this State to comply with questions posed during an investigation absent a clearly proven exigency, i.e. an imminent threat to life.
State v. Teebo Strongbad et al
HELD: The court found that, where there was no proof that the Defendant had previously arrived or been inside of the stolen vehicle, that the Defendant’s entry into a vehicle which had been tampered with was an action taken in an emergency to prevent bodily harm or death to themselves, and that a reasonable person would have taken the same action. Accordingly, the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY of Theft of a vehicle.
The People vs Donald Ashford #3640
If a person is found to be in constructive possession of a weapon or firearm that can be identified as being used in the commission of a previous crime (a “Hot Gun”), that person shall be subject to all charges that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt which are tied to that weapon or firearm. To prove their innocence in such a case the burden of proof shall shift to the defense where they must prove based on a preponderance of evidence that the person was not the perpetrator of the crimes.
State v. Jack Oswald White (#4444)
This Court, upon review of the eighth amendment, finds that to be compliant with the eight amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, the Court must consider specifically enumerated aggravating circumstances, and weight them against the mitigating circumstances provided by the Defendant.
This Court finds that aggravating circumstances which may be considered by the State in the implementation of Capital Punishment may include the following:
The Felony (A) offense was intentional and carried out for financial gain.
The defendant intentionally carried out the Felony (A) offense by means of lying in wait
The defendant was convicted previously of any Felony (A) offense.
The defendant, in this proceeding, has been convicted of more than one Felony (A) offense.
The Felony (A) offense was committed by means of a destructive device, bomb, or explosive planted, hidden, or concealed in any place, area, dwelling, building, or structure, and the defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his or her act or acts would create a great risk of death to one or more human beings.
The Felony (A) offense was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest, or perfecting or attempting to perfect, an escape from lawful custody.
The victim was a peace officer, an emergency medical provider, a doctor, a firefighter a federal law enforcement, a prosecutor or assistant prosecutor, a judge or former judge, an elected or appointed official or former official , or other government employee and the Felony (A) offense was intentionally carried out in retaliation for, or to prevent the performance of, the victim’s official duties.
The victim was a witness to a crime who was intentionally killed for the purpose of preventing his or her testimony in any criminal proceeding.
The Felony (A) offense was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity. As used in this section, the phrase “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity” means a conscienceless or pitiless crime that is unnecessarily torturous to the victim.
