I was wondering If the police can charge me with possession of something that he found in my house and did not have permission to come into my home?

What are the different ways in which the term ‘civil law’ is used in English law?

I am an officer and was wondering your take on this. I am on a domestic dispute where both husband and wife have been arguing. As I am speaking to the wife, she advises me that she wants her husband arrested for the marijuana he has in his drawer in the bedroom. The husband denies he has any drugs in the house.

Can I retrieve the drugs with the wife’s permission, or does the husband have a legitimate expectation of privacy in his own home with the items in his drawer?

I recently found out that my boss has planted listening devices in the office where I work. Also, he forces certain employees to call other employees on the phone to try to get them to say something deemed “inappropriate” all the while recording the conversation. I am in Scott, Louisiana and work for an oilfield testing company. Are my Boss’ actions legal?

What is a wrongful arrest? Is it any arrest of an innocent person? What if someone is arrested due to “probable cause” but later turns out to be innocent? Is that a wrongful arrest? Is a wrongful arrest the same as a false arrest?

In the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme court held that citizenship of a State and citizenship of the United States were essentially the same thing. Therefore, a Negro of slave descent could not be a citizen of a State, under the Constitution of the United States (though such a person could be a citizen of a State, under the constitution of an individual State) and because of this could not be a citizen of the United States. The reason being their ancestors were not citizens of a different State (under the Articles of Confederation) when the Constitution of the United States WAS ADOPTED (See Article II, Section 5, Clause 1 “Natural Born Citizen clause”).

The Slaughterhouse Cases had the following effect on Dred Scott. In the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court held that because of the Fourteenth Amendment, citizenship of a State and citizenship of the United States were now to be separate and distinct from each other. [Footnote] A Negro of slave descent was made, under the Fourteenth Amendment, a citizen of the United States. To become also a citizen of a State, all he or she had to do was to reside in an individual State.

——————

Footnote:

The reason the Supreme court held that citizenship of a State was to be separate and distinct from citizenship of the United States was because the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to those who were born before it was adopted, that is July 28, 1868. (Note: Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” and does not state: “All persons born in the United States AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”)

Because of this, the Supreme court, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, held that because of the Fourteenth Amendment there are now two citizens under the Constitution of the United States (and not the Fourteenth Amendment), a citizen of the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment and a citizen of the several States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. For futher information,
http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15882 .

© 2009

Is what you say when you get arrested matter in court if you were drunk when you talked to the officer?

What You Need To Know About This Case

Summary

Argued: January 11, 1872
Reargued: February 3 thru 5, 1873
Decided: April 14, 1873

Holding

    Before the Fourteenth Amendment, citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State were considered one in the same. After the Fourteenth Amendment, however, the two citizenships were determined to be separate and distinct. In addition, privileges and immunities of citizenship of the United States were to be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, not privileges and immunities of citizenship of a State. Privileges and immunities of citizenship of a state were to be found with the individual State.

    And, it was also decided that there were now two citizens under the Constitution of United States: a citizen of the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment and a citizen of the several States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.

Citations

    Official: 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36
    Complete: 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed. 394; 1872 U.S. Lexis 1139

————————

    The Slaughterhouse Cases represent the United States Supreme Court’s first interpretation of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It is viewed as a pivotal case in early civil rights law, as the Supreme Court narrowly read the Fourteenth Amendment to protect only “privileges or immunities” conferred by virtue of citizenship of the United States but not citizenship of a State, a distinction which persists to this day.

    In 1869, the Louisiana legislature passed a law that allowed the city of New Orleans to create a corporation (the Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughterhouse Company) to centralized all slaughterhouse operations in the city. Critics called it a legal monopoly based on political patronage designed to shut down independent butchers.

    Twenty-five butchers and those involved in the unloading, feeding, slaughtering, and other activities associated with converting livestock into food filed various lawsuits to halt the creation of the new corporation and any contemplated changes to the slaughtering business in New Orleans.

    Lower state courts found in favor of the new corporation in all cases. Five cases were appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The butchers based their claims on the due process, privileges or immunities and equal protection clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified by the several States only five years prior in 1868.

    In a five to four decision written by Justice Samuel Freeman Miller, the Supreme court held to a narrow interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and ruled that it did not restrict the police powers of a state. The Court held that the Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities clause affected only rights of United States citizenship and not State citizenship. Therefore, the butchers’ Fourteenth Amendment rights had not been violated.

    The Court also held that because of the Fourteenth Amendment there were now two separate and distinct citizens under the Constitution of the United States; a citizen of the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment and a citizen of the several States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1; or in other words, that there are two citizenship clauses in the Constitution of the United States, one in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the other at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1: [Footnote]

    “We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment (the 14th Amendment) of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (first section, second clause), which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, SPEAKS ONLY OF PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND DOES NOT SPEAK OF THOSE OF CITIZENS OF THE SEVERAL STATES. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.” 83 U.S. 36 (1873), page 74.

And:

    “In the Constitution of the United States, which superseded the Articles of Confederation, the corresponding provision is found in section two of the fourth article, in the following words: ‘The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several States.’ ” 83 U.S. 36 (1873), page 75.

The last was later reaffirmed in Cole v. Cunningham:

    “The intention of section 2, Article IV (of the Constitution), was to confer on the CITIZENS OF THE SEVERAL STATES a general citizenship.” Cole v. Cunningham: 133 U.S. 107, 113-114 (1890).

    The Slaughterhouse Cases represent the United States Supreme Court’s first interpretation of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In a five to four decision written by Justice Samuel Freeman Miller, the Supreme court held to a narrow interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and ruled that it did not restrict the police powers of a state. The Court held that the Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities clause affected only rights of United States citizenship and not State citizenship. The Court also held that because of the Fourteenth Amendment there were now two separate and distinct citizens under the Constitution of the United States; a citizen of the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment and a citizen of the several States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.

__________________

Footnote:

The Effects of the Fourteenth Amendment on the Constitution of the United States
http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15882

In addition;

Slaughterhouse Cases, Two Citizens
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/80677

Mistake in the Syllabus
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/81143

Slaughterhouse Cases, Up Close
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/81262

Two citizens under the Constitution
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/81367

Privileges and Immunities of a Citizen of the several States
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/81495

A Look At Corfield (On Citizenship)
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/93081

Resources:

Justice Samuel Freeman Miller

http://books.google.com/books id=C7sTAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Aw8aAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=3T1Dgk0OymUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://law.jrank.org/pages/8576/Miller-Samuel-Freeman.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3404704468.html

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Samuel_Freeman_Miller

Slaughterhouse Cases:

http://books.google.com/books?id=w1lLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA226

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qpo_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA76

http://books.google.com/books?id=QKsaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA257

http://www.answers.com/topic/slaughterhouse-cases

http://law.jrank.org/pages/13650/Slaughterhouse-Cases.html

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/labsla.html

© 2009

my ex falsely accused me of rape may of 2009 and has now dropped the charges. is there any way i can file a suit aginster based on these actions as well as maybe slander and defamation? and should i, can i contact the DA’s office to retrieve my belongings back taken as evidence?

my trucks have security cameras and they record sound and you can make out conversations (barely) but its there. could I have a problem in future ? the cameras are for liability (street sweepers) and logging time on jobs.