Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Addressing post-arrest pre-miranda silence (1)
- Always a danger? lifetime bans on gun ownership under fire following involuntary commitment (1)
- Amanda Pendel (1)
- And it can and will be used against you (1)
- Circuit courts (1)
-
- Conner Purcell (1)
- Constructive physical restraint (1)
- Danger to the public (1)
- Divorce (1)
- Due Process (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Firearms (1)
- Hirakis (1)
- In custody (1)
- International travel (1)
- Maria P. Hirakis (1)
- Monasky’s totality of circumstances is vague (1)
- Once mentally ill (1)
- Pendel (1)
- Plain language meaning (1)
- Please remain physically restrained while the robbery is in progress (1)
- Post-arrest silence (1)
- Psychological coercion (1)
- Purcell (1)
- Sabrina Salvi (1)
- Salvi (1)
- Self-incrimination (1)
- Sixth Amendment (1)
- Statutory scheme (1)
- Substantive evidence (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Once Mentally Ill, Always A Danger? Lifetime Bans On Gun Ownership Under Fire Following Involuntary Commitment, Amanda Pendel
Once Mentally Ill, Always A Danger? Lifetime Bans On Gun Ownership Under Fire Following Involuntary Commitment, Amanda Pendel
Touro Law Review
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) imposes a lifetime ban on those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution from purchasing, or possessing a firearm, regardless of an extended passage of time, or a finding that the individual is unlikely to pose a danger to themselves or the public. Three circuits have created a split concerning the constitutionality of this statute. The Third Circuit held in Beers v. Attorney General United States that those involuntarily committed were outside of the scope of the Second Amendment; therefore, the § 922(g)(4)’s categorical ban is constitutional. Next, the Ninth Circuit in Mai v. …
Monasky’S Totality Of Circumstances Is Vague – The Child’S Perspective Should Be The Main Test, Sabrina Salvi
Monasky’S Totality Of Circumstances Is Vague – The Child’S Perspective Should Be The Main Test, Sabrina Salvi
Touro Law Review
After decades of confusion, the Supreme Court ruled on child custody in an international setting in Monasky v. Taglieri, by attempting to establish the definition of a child’s “habitual residence.” The Court held that a child’s “residence in a particular country can be deemed ‘habitual, however, only when her residence there is more than transitory.’” Further, the Court stated that, ‘“[h]abitual’ implies customary, usual, of the nature of a habit.”’ However, the Supreme Court’s ruling remains unclear. The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“HCCAICA” or “The Hague Convention”), which is adopted in ninety-eight …
This Is Your Captain Speaking, Please Remain Physically Restrained While The Robbery Is In Progress, Conner J. Purcell
This Is Your Captain Speaking, Please Remain Physically Restrained While The Robbery Is In Progress, Conner J. Purcell
Touro Law Review
This note analyzes the current circuit split over the application of the “Physical Restraint” sentence enhancement as applied to the crime of robbery. In the first camp, the circuit courts apply a broad or constructive meaning of physical restraint: allowing words or demands with the use of a firearm to trigger the enhancement. In many cases, the courts focus on the victim’s reaction to the perpetrator rather than the perpetrator’s actual conduct, suggesting psychological restraint rather than physical restraint. In the second camp, the circuit courts apply a plain meaning interpretation of physical restraint. These cases routinely find that the …
You Have The Right To Remain Silent, And It Can And Will Be Used Against You: Addressing Post-Arrest Pre-Miranda Silence, Maria P. Hirakis
You Have The Right To Remain Silent, And It Can And Will Be Used Against You: Addressing Post-Arrest Pre-Miranda Silence, Maria P. Hirakis
Touro Law Review
The right to remain silent has long been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection. Since Miranda v. Arizona was decided in 1966, procedural safeguards have been put in place to inform individuals of this right upon arrest. Yet, a gray area exists when it comes to the use of an individual's silence post-arrest. It may surprise some that a point in time exists when an individual has not yet been read their Miranda rights post-arrest. Several circuit courts have taken the position that any silence that follows arrest but precedes the reading of Miranda …