Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that prohibited public carrying of loaded firearms without a permit. [2] Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party, which was conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods in what would later be ...
The Supreme Court held the arrest to be unlawful due, in part, to the lack of a valid warrant. This case has been widely cited on the internet, but is no longer considered good law in a growing number of jurisdictions. Most states have, either by statute or by case law, removed the unlawful arrest defense for resisting arrest.
Despite its legality in California, marijuana is still considered a Schedule 1 drug under the United States Controlled Substances Act. [24] This means that federal prosecutors are allowed to decide to arrest and prosecute cannabis users and sellers who are in accordance to California law but not federal law. [25]
The 6-3 decision by the high court’s conservative majority focused on whether "may-issue" concealed-carry laws in states such as New York and California were constitutional, or when licensing ...
The most common is "strict liability," meaning that there is no requirement of intent whatsoever: Merely being caught by law enforcement with the weapon in question under the circumstances described in the law (possession, concealed, or open) is a crime in and of itself, with almost no possible defense other than proving the item is not an ...
California criminal law generally follows the law of the United States. However, there are both substantive and procedural differences between how the United States federal government and California prosecute alleged violations of criminal law. This article focuses exclusively on California criminal law.
California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963), was a case before the United States Supreme Court, which incorporated the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure. The case was decided on June 10, 1963, by a vote of 5–4.
"Stop and identify" laws in different states that appear to be nearly identical may be different in effect because of interpretations by state courts. For example, California "stop and identify" law, Penal Code §647(e) had wording [37] [38] [39] similar to the Nevada law upheld in Hiibel, but a California appellate court, in People v.