4328 research outputs found
Sort by
Recent Development: Mitchell v. MD. Motor Vehicle Admin.: Vanity Licence Plates Constitute Private Speech in a Nonpublic Forum, Which Require Restrictions to be Reasonable and Viewpoint Neutral
Get PDFThe Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the Motor Vehicle Administration acted within constitutional boundaries when it recalled a vanity license plate displaying the word MIERDA. Mitchell v. Md. Motor Vehicle Admin., 450 Md. 282, 288, 148 A.3d 319, 323 (2016). The court found that the message on a vanity plate is considered private speech in a nonpublic forum, and accordingly government speech restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Id.
In 2009, the Motor Vehicle Administration ( MVA ) issued vanity plates with the term MIERDA to John T. Mitchell ( Mitchell ). Two years later, Mitchell renewed the plates. Thereafter, the MVA received a complaint about the use of the term MIERDA on the plates. After an investigation, the MVA determined that MIERDA is a Spanish profanity that translates to shit in English. Shit is a term listed on the MVA\u27s objectionable plate list; therefore, pursuant to COMAR 11.15.29.02(D), which authorizes rescission of plates containing profanities, epithets, or obscenities, the MVA informed Mitchell that it would be recalling his plates
Recent Development: Robinson v. State: Decriminalization of Possession of Less than Ten Grams of Marijuana Does Not Eliminate a Police Officer\u27s Probable Cause to Search Vehicles From Which the Odor of Marijuana Emanates
Get PDFThe Court of Appeals of Maryland held that decriminalization does not equate to legalization of marijuana; therefore, a law enforcement officer has probable cause to search a vehicle if the officer detects the odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. Robinson v. State, 451 Md. 94, 99, 152 A.3d 661, 664-65 (2017). The court explained that the odor of marijuana establishes probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime. Id. at 99, 152 A.3d at 665. Thus, there was probable cause to search the vehicles in each of the combined cases. Id. at 137, 152 A.3d at 687.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland consolidated three cases in which police officers smelled marijuana emanating from a vehicle. In the first case, Jermaul Rondell Robinson ( Robinson ) was leaning against a vehicle in Baltimore when two police officers approached him after noticing a strong odor of marijuana. The officers searched Robinson\u27s vehicle and seized sixteen small bags of marijuana. Similarly, in the second case, Dexter Williams ( Williams ) was sitting in a vehicle in Baltimore when a police officer walked towards him and smelled marijuana emanating from his car. The officer searched Williams\u27 car and seized a backpack, which contained a scale and 170 grams of marijuana
Recent Development: Sellman v. State: Absent Additional Circumstances, Consent to a Vehicle Search in a High Crime Area Does Not Create Reasonable Suspicion to Justify a Terry Frisk of a Passenger Who Displays Nervous Behavior; Theft from a Vehicle Does Not Automatically Infer That an Individual is Armed
Get PDFThe Court of Appeals of Maryland held that, under the totality of the circumstances, a law enforcement officer did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry frisk of a passenger during a traffic stop. Sellman v. State, 449 Md. 526, 544, 144 A.3d 771, 782 (2016). The court ruled that a police department policy authorizing officers to conduct Terry frisks based on consent to search a vehicle violates the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 557, 144 A.3d at 790. The court further held that the crime of theft from vehicles does not imply the possession of a deadly weapon. Id. at 562, 144 A.3d at 793.
On November 12, 2013, at approximately 2 a.m., Corporal William Daughters ( Daughters ) and Officer Dan Kramer ( Kramer ) were on patrol at an apartment complex. The location was considered a high crime area due to prior thefts from vehicles, drug arrests, and illegal possession of handguns. Daughters observed an individual, later identified as Donzel Sellman ( Sellman ), emerge from a dark area of an apartment building where there was no entrance. Shortly after, Sellman got into the rear passenger seat of a vehicle with three other occupants. The officers conducted surveillance and eventually stopped the vehicle after noticing a broken taillight and tag light. Daughters later testified that he observed Sellman sitting rigidly and looking straight ahead to avoid eye contact. Daughters asked the driver if Sellman lived in the apartment complex, to which she replied in the affirmative. Sellman later gave a conflicting response, claiming that he did not. Daughters issued a written warning to the driver and asked to searc
Defending Truth: The Quest for Honesty about Jews and Israel
No full textThe quest for truth has long been central to Western civilization and the academic enterprise, a prerequisite for honest discourse about ethics, law, and social order. So too have the problems and paradoxes of antisemitism persisted through the ages – as has the notion that they are endemic to the human condition and have been around for so long it is fruitless to fight them. But the countervailing urge to understand and explain the scourge of racial hatred and anti-Zionism, as well as the conviction that they can be substantially eradicated by sowing truth and honesty, likewise remains strong among freedom-loving people everywhere. DEFENDING TRUTH focuses on three areas that reflect the demonization of Jews and Israel over the past century: the continuing phenomenon of Holocaust denial, entrenched media bias in Mideast reporting, and the current worldwide effort to impose boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israeli academic, business, and state enterprises. By describing in detail the use of Big Lies and purposeful distortions to accomplish those ends, this book engages the difficult but necessary pursuit of an answer to the eternal query, how best can Truth be defended?https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/fac_books/1102/thumbnail.jp