Answer:
State Circuit Court.
This is because speed driving or driving above the speed limit is a minor offence that need not be dealt in a federal, higher court and can be easily taken care of by the lower state courts.
Explanation:
The State Circuit Court is an intermediate level court where local and limited jurisdiction cases are heard. These courts are the court systems that deal with cases that are not serious enough to be tried in the higher courts. They are also known as state courts.
In the scenario of being pulled over at the interstate by a state highway patrol car for speed driving or driving above the limit, the summons will be heard in a circuit court. This is because the case is just a minor one as compared to more serious offenses, which makes it eligible to be tried in a lower court rather than at the federal level.
Answer:
$30,000 - $6,000 = $24,000
$24,000 to finance at 4.71% for 60 months
24,000 divided by 60 = $400/month + 4.71% ( $18.84) = $418.84/month.
Explanation:
Answer:
Lobbying
Explanation:
Propaganda is information (true, false, or doctored) spread to harm an individual, group, ideology, etc.
Gerrymandering is dividing a state into election districts in order to give one political party an advantage over the other in elections.
Lobbying is an attempt to influence the decisions and actions (like votes) of members of a legislative body.
A political action committee is formed by a group with a common political or policy interest. Political action committees gain and contribute funds to a candidate (or candidates) who support their beliefs. These groups are able to make significantly larger donations than most individuals.
Answer:
Put simply, a criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. The agreement itself is the crime, but at least one co-conspirator must take an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under the federal conspiracy statute: The agreement by two or more persons is the essence of the crime.
Explanation:
Our question is this: What makes an act one of entrapment? We make a standard distinction between legal entrapment, which is carried out by parties acting in their capacities as (or as deputies of) law-enforcement agents, and civil entrapment, which is not. We aim to provide a definition of entrapment that covers both and which, for reasons we explain, does not settle questions of permissibility and culpability. We explain, compare, and contrast two existing definitions of legal entrapment to commit a crime that possess this neutrality. We point out some problems with the extensional correctness of these definitions and propose a new definition that resolves these problems. We then extend our definition to provide a more general definition of entrapment, encompassing both civil and legal cases. Our definition is, we believe, closer to being extensionally correct and will, we hope, provide a clearer basis for future discussions about the ethics of entrapment than do the definitions upon which it improves.
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
What the officers did was unconstitutional and violated the 4th amendment. Weeks v. United States established the Exclusionary Rule in 1914. At the time the exclusionary rule was only applied for federal courts instead of all courts. In 1949, Wolf v. Colorado, the High Court ruled that the Exclusionary Rule did not apply to the State but the Fourth Amendment did. In 1961, Mapp v. Ohio, the High Court ruled that the exclusionary rule applies to the state level as well as the federal. Justice Clark said this perfectly, "Thus the State, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, serves to encourage disobedience to the Federal Constitution which it is bound to uphold....... Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
