Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), is the first landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct, as contrasted with prohibiting the use of a particular form of punishment for a crime.
Case Ruling Right 1962 Robinson v. California: A state cannot make a person's status as an addict a crime; only behaviors can be criminal. 1st 1968 Powell v. Texas: Similarly to Robinson v. California, a state may not criminalize the status of alcoholism itself; the state may only prohibit behaviors. 8th
In this case, the punishments of fines, temporary bans from entering public property, and one-month jail sentences are viewed as neither cruel nor unusual. Second, while Robinson v. California prohibited criminalizing statuses, Grants Pass's anti-camping ordinances are interpreted as neutrally applied, regardless of one's housing status. [13]
The Supreme Court hears arguments Thursday over whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the 2024 ballot because of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, culminating in ...
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that "in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a reasonable search under that Amendment."
The Supreme Court will decide if homeless people have a right to camp on public property if no shelter is available, a 9th Circuit legal standard that has complicated efforts in Western states to ...
The 1962 case, Robinson v. California, involved the status of being addicted to drugs. ... had a strong interest in Grants Pass v. Johnson as California grapples with some of the highest rates ...
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), was a 1969 United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that police officers arresting a person at his home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but that police may search the area within immediate reach of the person without a warrant. [1]