-
TRAILER COASTGUARD OFFICIAL
#traileroutnow #coastguard #opshelang
🎬 COASTGUARD
🗓️ 2.2.23
🎥 CINEMA
published: 25 Dec 2022
-
TAYANGAN PERDANA FILEM COAST GUARD
#MigMovie #Mig #DavidTeo
#coastguard #maritime #malaysia #trending #viral #FullMovie #Mig #mydebit #mydebitje #starbuks #MigPictures #DavidTeo #Metrowealth #MigMovie
====================================================
Subscribe Youtube Metrowealth Pictures : https://www.youtube.com/user/Metrowea...
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/migonline
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/migonline
SILA LIKE, COMMENT, SUBSCRIBE, & SHARE.
Copyright By / Hakcipta Terpelihara : MIG Pictures.Sdn.Bhd
published: 13 Feb 2023
-
THE GUARDIAN-Welcome to A School!
On day one of training, new recruits are welcomed to A School at the U.S. Coast Guard. This movie stars Kevin Costner, Ashton Kutcher, Brian Geraghty and Sela Ward. #coastguard
published: 10 Jun 2020
-
Filem : Coast Guard Malaysia: Ops Helang {Sarikata Bahasa Melayu} (2023) [ASTRO FIRST]
Sinopsis : Kisah kehidupan seorang Pegawai Pasukan Tindakan Khas dan Penyelamat (STAR Team) dari Agensi Penguatkuasaan Maritim Malaysia (APMM) iaitu Leftenan Maritim Hafiz (Saharul Ridzwan) yang ingin memulakan kehidupan baharu di sebuah pulau setelah mengalami Gangguan Stress Pasca Trauma (PTSD) akibat kehilangan rakan setugasnya dalam sebuah misi operasi.
Hafiz juga membawa tunangnya Nurul (Jaja Iliyes) untuk tinggal bersama setelah mereka memutuskan untuk berkahwin. Namun, ketika Majlis Sambutan Pertunangan Hafiz dan Nurul, sekumpulan penjenayah yang tidak dikenali telah menyerang mereka dan menculik Hafiz, Nurul dan ibu-bapanya serta beberapa lagi tetamu lain termasuk beberapa Anggota APMM untuk dijadikan tebusan.
Leftenan Maritim Melati (Julia Farhana), seorang Pegawai Penyiasat APM...
published: 10 Apr 2023
-
DI SEBALIK TABIR FILEM COAST GUARD MALAYSIA: OPS HELANG
Go way beyond the surface and experience the making of the highly-anticipated film, Coast Guard: OPS Helang. From the hard work and dedication of the cast and crew to the intricate details of production, this is your chance to see it all. Don't miss out on this thrilling opportunity to discover the magic behind the film.
Sebuah filem yang diarahakan oleh Allayarham Pitt Hanif yang akan di tayangkan di pawagam mulai 2 Februari 2023. Dikesempatan ini juga, bersama kita berdoa agar roh Allahyarham dicucuri rahmat dan bersama orang-orang yang beriman. InshaAllah.
Al-Fatihah
#CoastGuard #OPSHelang #WeTakeItSeriously #MalaysiaCoastGuard #APMM #MaritimMalaysia #MaritimeNation #FilemCoastGuard
published: 29 Jan 2023
-
Trailer to a film "The Coast Guard / Hae anseon" 2002, the director Ki-duk Kim
published: 16 Jan 2010
-
Coast Guard Malaysia: Ops Helang - Movie Review
#ZHAFVLOG's Signature 5th Anniversary T-Shirt Pre-order:
https://shope.ee/1L7bGjdZsH
TOP 10 MOVIES 2022
GREAT MOVIES: https://youtu.be/RNETwOAwIO4
WORST MOVIES: https://youtu.be/IOSky9IWq4c
FILEM GEMPAK: https://youtu.be/8H_IP0L8BIw
FILEM SAMPAH: https://youtu.be/BvAZDdOHyL0
SUBS CHOICE AWARD: https://youtu.be/F37K3nEsJFU
Barang Zhaf guna untuk Pure Pixels:
Camera: https://shope.ee/5zrSiHYw4Z
Microphone: https://shope.ee/6KUJ6xNJuj
Tablet: https://shope.ee/406OKlCBFZ
Apple TV 4K (2022): https://shope.ee/3VAZWYd9gC
Apple TV Remote Casing: https://shope.ee/7f08UGzkOa
Apple TV Casing Wall Mount: https://shope.ee/2VI2KqHnhR
Nintendo Switch OLED Pokemon Scarlet Violet Edition: https://shope.ee/7zceYVrUpc
Pokemon Scarlet Violet: https://shope.ee/9URSLO9uGe
Necklace Black Panther: https://shope...
published: 02 Feb 2023
-
The Guardian - Movie Trailer (2006)
After losing his crew in a fatal crash, legendary Rescue Swimmer, Ben Randall (KEVIN COSTNER), is sent to teach at A School, an elite training program for Coast Guard Rescue Swimmers. Wrestling with the loss of his crew members, he throws himself into teaching, turning the program upside down with his unorthodox training methods.
published: 07 Mar 2010
-
Film Malaysia aksi terbaru Menegangkan full movie #film #filmmalaysia #filmaction
published: 05 Mar 2022
-
Indian Coast Guard promotional film 2022
Watch the Indian Coast Guard promotional film 2022 launched on the occasion of 46th raising day.
published: 02 Feb 2022
2:08
TRAILER COASTGUARD OFFICIAL
#traileroutnow #coastguard #opshelang
🎬 COASTGUARD
🗓️ 2.2.23
🎥 CINEMA
#traileroutnow #coastguard #opshelang
🎬 COASTGUARD
🗓️ 2.2.23
🎥 CINEMA
https://wn.com/Trailer_Coastguard_Official
#traileroutnow #coastguard #opshelang
🎬 COASTGUARD
🗓️ 2.2.23
🎥 CINEMA
- published: 25 Dec 2022
- views: 206478
10:02
TAYANGAN PERDANA FILEM COAST GUARD
#MigMovie #Mig #DavidTeo
#coastguard #maritime #malaysia #trending #viral #FullMovie #Mig #mydebit #mydebitje #starbuks #MigPictures #DavidTeo #Metrowealth #Mig...
#MigMovie #Mig #DavidTeo
#coastguard #maritime #malaysia #trending #viral #FullMovie #Mig #mydebit #mydebitje #starbuks #MigPictures #DavidTeo #Metrowealth #MigMovie
====================================================
Subscribe Youtube Metrowealth Pictures : https://www.youtube.com/user/Metrowea...
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/migonline
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/migonline
SILA LIKE, COMMENT, SUBSCRIBE, & SHARE.
Copyright By / Hakcipta Terpelihara : MIG Pictures.Sdn.Bhd
https://wn.com/Tayangan_Perdana_Filem_Coast_Guard
#MigMovie #Mig #DavidTeo
#coastguard #maritime #malaysia #trending #viral #FullMovie #Mig #mydebit #mydebitje #starbuks #MigPictures #DavidTeo #Metrowealth #MigMovie
====================================================
Subscribe Youtube Metrowealth Pictures : https://www.youtube.com/user/Metrowea...
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/migonline
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/migonline
SILA LIKE, COMMENT, SUBSCRIBE, & SHARE.
Copyright By / Hakcipta Terpelihara : MIG Pictures.Sdn.Bhd
- published: 13 Feb 2023
- views: 136017
3:44
THE GUARDIAN-Welcome to A School!
On day one of training, new recruits are welcomed to A School at the U.S. Coast Guard. This movie stars Kevin Costner, Ashton Kutcher, Brian Geraghty and Sela W...
On day one of training, new recruits are welcomed to A School at the U.S. Coast Guard. This movie stars Kevin Costner, Ashton Kutcher, Brian Geraghty and Sela Ward. #coastguard
https://wn.com/The_Guardian_Welcome_To_A_School
On day one of training, new recruits are welcomed to A School at the U.S. Coast Guard. This movie stars Kevin Costner, Ashton Kutcher, Brian Geraghty and Sela Ward. #coastguard
- published: 10 Jun 2020
- views: 217904
1:24:18
Filem : Coast Guard Malaysia: Ops Helang {Sarikata Bahasa Melayu} (2023) [ASTRO FIRST]
Sinopsis : Kisah kehidupan seorang Pegawai Pasukan Tindakan Khas dan Penyelamat (STAR Team) dari Agensi Penguatkuasaan Maritim Malaysia (APMM) iaitu Leftenan Ma...
Sinopsis : Kisah kehidupan seorang Pegawai Pasukan Tindakan Khas dan Penyelamat (STAR Team) dari Agensi Penguatkuasaan Maritim Malaysia (APMM) iaitu Leftenan Maritim Hafiz (Saharul Ridzwan) yang ingin memulakan kehidupan baharu di sebuah pulau setelah mengalami Gangguan Stress Pasca Trauma (PTSD) akibat kehilangan rakan setugasnya dalam sebuah misi operasi.
Hafiz juga membawa tunangnya Nurul (Jaja Iliyes) untuk tinggal bersama setelah mereka memutuskan untuk berkahwin. Namun, ketika Majlis Sambutan Pertunangan Hafiz dan Nurul, sekumpulan penjenayah yang tidak dikenali telah menyerang mereka dan menculik Hafiz, Nurul dan ibu-bapanya serta beberapa lagi tetamu lain termasuk beberapa Anggota APMM untuk dijadikan tebusan.
Leftenan Maritim Melati (Julia Farhana), seorang Pegawai Penyiasat APMM daripada Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Maritim yang ditugaskan untuk menyiasat kes itu berjaya menemui dan menyelamatkan Hafiz, Nurul dan bapanya.
Krisis terus meruncing apabila kumpulan penjenayah itu berterusan mencabar komitmen Hafiz dan APMM lalu menyebabkan satu operasi besar-besaran diaktifkan sehingga kumpulan penjenayah terbabit tumpas.
Pengarah : Pitt Hanif
Dibintangi : Saharul Ridzwan, Adlin Aman Ramlie Julia, Farhana Marin & Hazama Azmi
Dihasilkan oleh : Arie Zaharie, Azlan Zaharie, Rozita Mat Isa (eksekutif), David Teo (bersama) & Khairul Anwar Salleh (bersama)
Lakon layar : Jason Chong, Tommy Loh & Puovin Sandera
Sinematografi : Sham Mokhtar
Syarikat Penerbitan : Arie Zaharie Production, Flying Deals,.Metrowealth Pictures & Primeworks Studios
https://wn.com/Filem_Coast_Guard_Malaysia_Ops_Helang_Sarikata_Bahasa_Melayu_(2023)_Astro_First
Sinopsis : Kisah kehidupan seorang Pegawai Pasukan Tindakan Khas dan Penyelamat (STAR Team) dari Agensi Penguatkuasaan Maritim Malaysia (APMM) iaitu Leftenan Maritim Hafiz (Saharul Ridzwan) yang ingin memulakan kehidupan baharu di sebuah pulau setelah mengalami Gangguan Stress Pasca Trauma (PTSD) akibat kehilangan rakan setugasnya dalam sebuah misi operasi.
Hafiz juga membawa tunangnya Nurul (Jaja Iliyes) untuk tinggal bersama setelah mereka memutuskan untuk berkahwin. Namun, ketika Majlis Sambutan Pertunangan Hafiz dan Nurul, sekumpulan penjenayah yang tidak dikenali telah menyerang mereka dan menculik Hafiz, Nurul dan ibu-bapanya serta beberapa lagi tetamu lain termasuk beberapa Anggota APMM untuk dijadikan tebusan.
Leftenan Maritim Melati (Julia Farhana), seorang Pegawai Penyiasat APMM daripada Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Maritim yang ditugaskan untuk menyiasat kes itu berjaya menemui dan menyelamatkan Hafiz, Nurul dan bapanya.
Krisis terus meruncing apabila kumpulan penjenayah itu berterusan mencabar komitmen Hafiz dan APMM lalu menyebabkan satu operasi besar-besaran diaktifkan sehingga kumpulan penjenayah terbabit tumpas.
Pengarah : Pitt Hanif
Dibintangi : Saharul Ridzwan, Adlin Aman Ramlie Julia, Farhana Marin & Hazama Azmi
Dihasilkan oleh : Arie Zaharie, Azlan Zaharie, Rozita Mat Isa (eksekutif), David Teo (bersama) & Khairul Anwar Salleh (bersama)
Lakon layar : Jason Chong, Tommy Loh & Puovin Sandera
Sinematografi : Sham Mokhtar
Syarikat Penerbitan : Arie Zaharie Production, Flying Deals,.Metrowealth Pictures & Primeworks Studios
- published: 10 Apr 2023
- views: 134638
25:22
DI SEBALIK TABIR FILEM COAST GUARD MALAYSIA: OPS HELANG
Go way beyond the surface and experience the making of the highly-anticipated film, Coast Guard: OPS Helang. From the hard work and dedication of the cast and c...
Go way beyond the surface and experience the making of the highly-anticipated film, Coast Guard: OPS Helang. From the hard work and dedication of the cast and crew to the intricate details of production, this is your chance to see it all. Don't miss out on this thrilling opportunity to discover the magic behind the film.
Sebuah filem yang diarahakan oleh Allayarham Pitt Hanif yang akan di tayangkan di pawagam mulai 2 Februari 2023. Dikesempatan ini juga, bersama kita berdoa agar roh Allahyarham dicucuri rahmat dan bersama orang-orang yang beriman. InshaAllah.
Al-Fatihah
#CoastGuard #OPSHelang #WeTakeItSeriously #MalaysiaCoastGuard #APMM #MaritimMalaysia #MaritimeNation #FilemCoastGuard
https://wn.com/Di_Sebalik_Tabir_Filem_Coast_Guard_Malaysia_Ops_Helang
Go way beyond the surface and experience the making of the highly-anticipated film, Coast Guard: OPS Helang. From the hard work and dedication of the cast and crew to the intricate details of production, this is your chance to see it all. Don't miss out on this thrilling opportunity to discover the magic behind the film.
Sebuah filem yang diarahakan oleh Allayarham Pitt Hanif yang akan di tayangkan di pawagam mulai 2 Februari 2023. Dikesempatan ini juga, bersama kita berdoa agar roh Allahyarham dicucuri rahmat dan bersama orang-orang yang beriman. InshaAllah.
Al-Fatihah
#CoastGuard #OPSHelang #WeTakeItSeriously #MalaysiaCoastGuard #APMM #MaritimMalaysia #MaritimeNation #FilemCoastGuard
- published: 29 Jan 2023
- views: 63009
11:30
Coast Guard Malaysia: Ops Helang - Movie Review
#ZHAFVLOG's Signature 5th Anniversary T-Shirt Pre-order:
https://shope.ee/1L7bGjdZsH
TOP 10 MOVIES 2022
GREAT MOVIES: https://youtu.be/RNETwOAwIO4
WORST MOVIES...
#ZHAFVLOG's Signature 5th Anniversary T-Shirt Pre-order:
https://shope.ee/1L7bGjdZsH
TOP 10 MOVIES 2022
GREAT MOVIES: https://youtu.be/RNETwOAwIO4
WORST MOVIES: https://youtu.be/IOSky9IWq4c
FILEM GEMPAK: https://youtu.be/8H_IP0L8BIw
FILEM SAMPAH: https://youtu.be/BvAZDdOHyL0
SUBS CHOICE AWARD: https://youtu.be/F37K3nEsJFU
Barang Zhaf guna untuk Pure Pixels:
Camera: https://shope.ee/5zrSiHYw4Z
Microphone: https://shope.ee/6KUJ6xNJuj
Tablet: https://shope.ee/406OKlCBFZ
Apple TV 4K (2022): https://shope.ee/3VAZWYd9gC
Apple TV Remote Casing: https://shope.ee/7f08UGzkOa
Apple TV Casing Wall Mount: https://shope.ee/2VI2KqHnhR
Nintendo Switch OLED Pokemon Scarlet Violet Edition: https://shope.ee/7zceYVrUpc
Pokemon Scarlet Violet: https://shope.ee/9URSLO9uGe
Necklace Black Panther: https://shope.ee/1L5d9RWQFd
T-shirt Black Panther: https://shope.ee/2Aek96Q9jB
FunkoPOP Black Panther: https://shope.ee/30Dr8bx7uT
Do follow my social media for fast update:
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/ZHAFVLOG/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/zhafvlog/
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/zhafvlog
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/PurePixels
https://wn.com/Coast_Guard_Malaysia_Ops_Helang_Movie_Review
#ZHAFVLOG's Signature 5th Anniversary T-Shirt Pre-order:
https://shope.ee/1L7bGjdZsH
TOP 10 MOVIES 2022
GREAT MOVIES: https://youtu.be/RNETwOAwIO4
WORST MOVIES: https://youtu.be/IOSky9IWq4c
FILEM GEMPAK: https://youtu.be/8H_IP0L8BIw
FILEM SAMPAH: https://youtu.be/BvAZDdOHyL0
SUBS CHOICE AWARD: https://youtu.be/F37K3nEsJFU
Barang Zhaf guna untuk Pure Pixels:
Camera: https://shope.ee/5zrSiHYw4Z
Microphone: https://shope.ee/6KUJ6xNJuj
Tablet: https://shope.ee/406OKlCBFZ
Apple TV 4K (2022): https://shope.ee/3VAZWYd9gC
Apple TV Remote Casing: https://shope.ee/7f08UGzkOa
Apple TV Casing Wall Mount: https://shope.ee/2VI2KqHnhR
Nintendo Switch OLED Pokemon Scarlet Violet Edition: https://shope.ee/7zceYVrUpc
Pokemon Scarlet Violet: https://shope.ee/9URSLO9uGe
Necklace Black Panther: https://shope.ee/1L5d9RWQFd
T-shirt Black Panther: https://shope.ee/2Aek96Q9jB
FunkoPOP Black Panther: https://shope.ee/30Dr8bx7uT
Do follow my social media for fast update:
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/ZHAFVLOG/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/zhafvlog/
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/zhafvlog
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/PurePixels
- published: 02 Feb 2023
- views: 104199
2:30
The Guardian - Movie Trailer (2006)
After losing his crew in a fatal crash, legendary Rescue Swimmer, Ben Randall (KEVIN COSTNER), is sent to teach at A School, an elite training program for Coast...
After losing his crew in a fatal crash, legendary Rescue Swimmer, Ben Randall (KEVIN COSTNER), is sent to teach at A School, an elite training program for Coast Guard Rescue Swimmers. Wrestling with the loss of his crew members, he throws himself into teaching, turning the program upside down with his unorthodox training methods.
https://wn.com/The_Guardian_Movie_Trailer_(2006)
After losing his crew in a fatal crash, legendary Rescue Swimmer, Ben Randall (KEVIN COSTNER), is sent to teach at A School, an elite training program for Coast Guard Rescue Swimmers. Wrestling with the loss of his crew members, he throws himself into teaching, turning the program upside down with his unorthodox training methods.
- published: 07 Mar 2010
- views: 720612
5:37
Indian Coast Guard promotional film 2022
Watch the Indian Coast Guard promotional film 2022 launched on the occasion of 46th raising day.
Watch the Indian Coast Guard promotional film 2022 launched on the occasion of 46th raising day.
https://wn.com/Indian_Coast_Guard_Promotional_Film_2022
Watch the Indian Coast Guard promotional film 2022 launched on the occasion of 46th raising day.
- published: 02 Feb 2022
- views: 30369
-
United States v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
United States v. White | 401 U.S. 745 (1971)
Imagine you have what you think is a confidential conversation with a friend or acquaintance, but you later learn that the other person was a police informant wearing a wire. Does the informant’s use of the device require a search warrant? The Supreme Court addressed that issue in the 1971 case of United States versus White.
On several occasions, Harvey Jackson purchased illegal drugs from James White. Unknown to White, Jackson was a police informant wearing a device that permitted federal agents to listen to their conversations about the drug transactions from a remote locatio...
published: 21 Oct 2020
-
United States v. White (1971) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
A man named James A. White was sentenced to prison for illegal drug transactions. The issue is whether evidence obtained through electronic surveillance of conversations between White and a government informant violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals allowed the use of evidence obtained through electronic surveillance without a warrant. The Supreme Court disagreed with this decision and had to determine if the electronic surveillance violated White's Fourth Amendment rights.
United States v. White (1971)
Supreme Court of the United States
401 U.S. 745, 28 L. Ed. 2d 453, 91 S. Ct. 1122, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 132, SCDB 1970-076
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-121436041
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a...
published: 27 May 2023
-
United States v White (1971)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #678
published: 04 Mar 2021
-
United States v. White Calf (2011) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
A man named Roman White Calf was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor when he engaged in sexual activity with a 13-year-old at a party on an Indian Reservation. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the jury was not properly instructed and that the government did not prove he knew the victim's age. The court also considered evidentiary rulings, including the admissibility of a photograph and a police officer's testimony about the minor's appearance and age.
United States v. White Calf (2011)
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
634 F.3d 453
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-calf-129517068
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just t...
published: 16 Aug 2023
-
State v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
State v. White | 114 S.W.3d 469 (2003)
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel. But can a defendant choose any attorney, even if that attorney is a prosecutor? In State versus White, the Tennessee Supreme Court explores the interplay between a defendant’s right to counsel and an attorney’s ethical responsibility to avoid conflicts of interest.
After a grand jury in Shelby County, Tennessee indicted Jeremy White for multiple felonies, he hired attorney Mark McDaniel to defend him. During that same time, McDaniel was also practicing as a part-time assistant district attorney with authorit...
published: 06 Jun 2022
-
State v. White (2011) Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 36,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
State v. White | 251 P.3d 820 (2011)
An affirmative defense defeats or reduces an otherwise legitimate criminal charge. State versus White compares and contrasts two specific affirmative defenses that reduce murder to manslaughter.
Brenda and Jon White had a rocky marriage. Brenda felt anxious and angry during the marriage because she suspected that John was addicted to pornography and having an affair. The couple eventually divorced. Jon subsequently refused to pay child support and cancelled Brenda’s health insurance. As a result, Brenda struggled financially and worked longer hours. She tried to alleviate her financial i...
published: 02 Mar 2023
-
United States v. White (1978) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
The Whites were convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. Phillip was also convicted of heroin possession with intent to distribute. They challenged their conspiracy convictions on grounds of insufficient evidence. They were convicted based on the work of two DEA agents who worked with a confidential informant. The informant bought heroin from Williams and concluded that Williams was selling for Claudell. The informant later bought small quantities of heroin from Phillip and discussed becoming a dealer for him. Phillip was later convicted of heroin possession based on Leeper's testimony that he purchased the drugs from Phillip. The court ruled that the chain of custody for the heroin was sufficient.
United States v. White (1978)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth...
published: 09 Jun 2023
-
United States v. White (2012) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
William White, a white supremacist, posted personal information about a juror on his website and was convicted of soliciting violence against the juror. However, the district court later granted his motion for acquittal or a new trial, but the appellate court reversed the decision. During the retrial, the government presented evidence of White's advocacy for violence against individuals he deemed "anti-racist" or "enemies" of white supremacy. The court provided instructions to the jury that speech is protected unless it incites an imminent lawless act. White's challenge to the district court's decision to use an anonymous jury was rejected.
United States v. White (2012)
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
698 F.3d 1005
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/...
published: 16 Aug 2023
-
Alabama v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Alabama v. White | 496 U.S. 325 (1990)
Imagine someone anonymously calls the police department and claims that you’ve got illegal drugs in your car. Does the Fourth Amendment allow an officer to pull your car over and ask you whether you’ve got drugs, based on the anonymous tip? The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Alabama versus White.
An anonymous caller told an officer with the Montgomery Police Department that an undescribed woman named Vanessa White was a drug dealer who would be engaging in a drug transaction later that day. The caller said White would drive away from a particular apartment complex...
published: 13 Nov 2020
-
United States v. White (2011) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
The defendant is a white supremacist leader who posted personal information about a juror on his website and made threatening statements towards various individuals and groups, including Jewish people and anti-racist activists. The government accused the defendant of soliciting violence and inciting harm through his online posts. The case involves potential violations of laws related to intimidation, harassment, hate speech, and incitement to violence.
The most relevant facts to the court's analysis are the nature and content of the defendant's posts, including whether they constitute protected speech or solicitation of violence. The court must also consider whether the defendant's statements present a threat to public safety and violate applicable laws.
United States v. White (2011)
Uni...
published: 16 Aug 2023
1:25
United States v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-ove...
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
United States v. White | 401 U.S. 745 (1971)
Imagine you have what you think is a confidential conversation with a friend or acquaintance, but you later learn that the other person was a police informant wearing a wire. Does the informant’s use of the device require a search warrant? The Supreme Court addressed that issue in the 1971 case of United States versus White.
On several occasions, Harvey Jackson purchased illegal drugs from James White. Unknown to White, Jackson was a police informant wearing a device that permitted federal agents to listen to their conversations about the drug transactions from a remote location. The agents didn’t obtain a search warrant before conducting the electronic eavesdropping. A federal grand jury later charged White with felony drug charges. White pleaded not guilty and had a jury trial. The district court overruled White’s objection that the agents’ electronic eavesdropping constituted an unconstitutional warrantless search and allowed the agents to testify about what they heard White say to Harvey. The jury convicted White, and he was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison.
White appealed to the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which reversed his conviction after concluding that the agents violated the Fourth Amendment by listening to White’s conversations with Harvey.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-white
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-white
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
https://wn.com/United_States_V._White_Case_Brief_Summary_|_Law_Case_Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
United States v. White | 401 U.S. 745 (1971)
Imagine you have what you think is a confidential conversation with a friend or acquaintance, but you later learn that the other person was a police informant wearing a wire. Does the informant’s use of the device require a search warrant? The Supreme Court addressed that issue in the 1971 case of United States versus White.
On several occasions, Harvey Jackson purchased illegal drugs from James White. Unknown to White, Jackson was a police informant wearing a device that permitted federal agents to listen to their conversations about the drug transactions from a remote location. The agents didn’t obtain a search warrant before conducting the electronic eavesdropping. A federal grand jury later charged White with felony drug charges. White pleaded not guilty and had a jury trial. The district court overruled White’s objection that the agents’ electronic eavesdropping constituted an unconstitutional warrantless search and allowed the agents to testify about what they heard White say to Harvey. The jury convicted White, and he was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison.
White appealed to the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which reversed his conviction after concluding that the agents violated the Fourth Amendment by listening to White’s conversations with Harvey.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-white
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-white
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
- published: 21 Oct 2020
- views: 2317
1:34
United States v. White (1971) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
A man named James A. White was sentenced to prison for illegal drug transactions. The issue is whether evidence obtained through electronic surveillance of conv...
A man named James A. White was sentenced to prison for illegal drug transactions. The issue is whether evidence obtained through electronic surveillance of conversations between White and a government informant violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals allowed the use of evidence obtained through electronic surveillance without a warrant. The Supreme Court disagreed with this decision and had to determine if the electronic surveillance violated White's Fourth Amendment rights.
United States v. White (1971)
Supreme Court of the United States
401 U.S. 745, 28 L. Ed. 2d 453, 91 S. Ct. 1122, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 132, SCDB 1970-076
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-121436041
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
https://wn.com/United_States_V._White_(1971)_Overview_|_Lsdata_Case_Brief_Video_Summary
A man named James A. White was sentenced to prison for illegal drug transactions. The issue is whether evidence obtained through electronic surveillance of conversations between White and a government informant violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals allowed the use of evidence obtained through electronic surveillance without a warrant. The Supreme Court disagreed with this decision and had to determine if the electronic surveillance violated White's Fourth Amendment rights.
United States v. White (1971)
Supreme Court of the United States
401 U.S. 745, 28 L. Ed. 2d 453, 91 S. Ct. 1122, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 132, SCDB 1970-076
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-121436041
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
- published: 27 May 2023
- views: 80
1:30
United States v White (1971)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #678
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #678
https://wn.com/United_States_V_White_(1971)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #678
- published: 04 Mar 2021
- views: 332
2:44
United States v. White Calf (2011) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
A man named Roman White Calf was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor when he engaged in sexual activity with a 13-year-old at a party on an Indian Reservation....
A man named Roman White Calf was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor when he engaged in sexual activity with a 13-year-old at a party on an Indian Reservation. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the jury was not properly instructed and that the government did not prove he knew the victim's age. The court also considered evidentiary rulings, including the admissibility of a photograph and a police officer's testimony about the minor's appearance and age.
United States v. White Calf (2011)
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
634 F.3d 453
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-calf-129517068
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
https://wn.com/United_States_V._White_Calf_(2011)_Overview_|_Lsdata_Case_Brief_Video_Summary
A man named Roman White Calf was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor when he engaged in sexual activity with a 13-year-old at a party on an Indian Reservation. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the jury was not properly instructed and that the government did not prove he knew the victim's age. The court also considered evidentiary rulings, including the admissibility of a photograph and a police officer's testimony about the minor's appearance and age.
United States v. White Calf (2011)
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
634 F.3d 453
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-calf-129517068
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
- published: 16 Aug 2023
- views: 27
1:22
State v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-brief...
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
State v. White | 114 S.W.3d 469 (2003)
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel. But can a defendant choose any attorney, even if that attorney is a prosecutor? In State versus White, the Tennessee Supreme Court explores the interplay between a defendant’s right to counsel and an attorney’s ethical responsibility to avoid conflicts of interest.
After a grand jury in Shelby County, Tennessee indicted Jeremy White for multiple felonies, he hired attorney Mark McDaniel to defend him. During that same time, McDaniel was also practicing as a part-time assistant district attorney with authority to prosecute crimes in Shelby County. Before White’s case went to trial, the state of Tennessee moved to disqualify McDaniel from representing White.
The trial court disqualified McDaniel based on a perceived conflict of interest. The trial court also barred White from waiving the conflict without the state’s consent. White appealed to the criminal appeals court, which affirmed the trial court judgment but found an actual conflict of interest rather than a perceived one. White then appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-114-s-w-3d-469-2003
The Quimbee App features over 20,000 case briefs keyed to over 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-114-s-w-3d-469-2003
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
https://wn.com/State_V._White_Case_Brief_Summary_|_Law_Case_Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
State v. White | 114 S.W.3d 469 (2003)
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel. But can a defendant choose any attorney, even if that attorney is a prosecutor? In State versus White, the Tennessee Supreme Court explores the interplay between a defendant’s right to counsel and an attorney’s ethical responsibility to avoid conflicts of interest.
After a grand jury in Shelby County, Tennessee indicted Jeremy White for multiple felonies, he hired attorney Mark McDaniel to defend him. During that same time, McDaniel was also practicing as a part-time assistant district attorney with authority to prosecute crimes in Shelby County. Before White’s case went to trial, the state of Tennessee moved to disqualify McDaniel from representing White.
The trial court disqualified McDaniel based on a perceived conflict of interest. The trial court also barred White from waiving the conflict without the state’s consent. White appealed to the criminal appeals court, which affirmed the trial court judgment but found an actual conflict of interest rather than a perceived one. White then appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-114-s-w-3d-469-2003
The Quimbee App features over 20,000 case briefs keyed to over 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-114-s-w-3d-469-2003
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
- published: 06 Jun 2022
- views: 204
2:17
State v. White (2011) Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 36,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-ove...
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 36,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
State v. White | 251 P.3d 820 (2011)
An affirmative defense defeats or reduces an otherwise legitimate criminal charge. State versus White compares and contrasts two specific affirmative defenses that reduce murder to manslaughter.
Brenda and Jon White had a rocky marriage. Brenda felt anxious and angry during the marriage because she suspected that John was addicted to pornography and having an affair. The couple eventually divorced. Jon subsequently refused to pay child support and cancelled Brenda’s health insurance. As a result, Brenda struggled financially and worked longer hours. She tried to alleviate her financial issues by refinancing the Whites’ marital home. But she needed Jon’s cooperation and signature. So, she went to Jon’s office to discuss the refinancing. They argued because Jon was reluctant to cooperate. Brenda became frustrated and drove away. She returned four hours later and saw Jon talking on a cell phone that he had denied owning during their marriage. Brenda chased Jon with her car, but he escaped into the office building. She then drove into the building and struck Jon twice. The State of Utah charged her with attempted murder. Before trial, Brenda moved for the judge to provide a jury instruction on the extreme-emotional-distress defense. She argued that when she saw Jon’s cell phone, the stress and emotion accumulated throughout their relationship overcame her and made her lose control.
The trial court denied Brenda’s motion, and she filed an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals held that the extreme-emotional-distress defense requires a loss of self-control resulting from a highly provocative and contemporaneous triggering event. It concluded that seeing Jon’s cell phone wasn’t sufficiently provocative and Brenda’s other prior stressors didn’t occur contemporaneously to her loss of control. Thus, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and Brenda appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-251-p-3d-820-2011
The Quimbee App features over 36,300 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-251-p-3d-820-2011
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
https://wn.com/State_V._White_(2011)_Case_Brief_Summary_|_Law_Case_Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 36,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
State v. White | 251 P.3d 820 (2011)
An affirmative defense defeats or reduces an otherwise legitimate criminal charge. State versus White compares and contrasts two specific affirmative defenses that reduce murder to manslaughter.
Brenda and Jon White had a rocky marriage. Brenda felt anxious and angry during the marriage because she suspected that John was addicted to pornography and having an affair. The couple eventually divorced. Jon subsequently refused to pay child support and cancelled Brenda’s health insurance. As a result, Brenda struggled financially and worked longer hours. She tried to alleviate her financial issues by refinancing the Whites’ marital home. But she needed Jon’s cooperation and signature. So, she went to Jon’s office to discuss the refinancing. They argued because Jon was reluctant to cooperate. Brenda became frustrated and drove away. She returned four hours later and saw Jon talking on a cell phone that he had denied owning during their marriage. Brenda chased Jon with her car, but he escaped into the office building. She then drove into the building and struck Jon twice. The State of Utah charged her with attempted murder. Before trial, Brenda moved for the judge to provide a jury instruction on the extreme-emotional-distress defense. She argued that when she saw Jon’s cell phone, the stress and emotion accumulated throughout their relationship overcame her and made her lose control.
The trial court denied Brenda’s motion, and she filed an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals held that the extreme-emotional-distress defense requires a loss of self-control resulting from a highly provocative and contemporaneous triggering event. It concluded that seeing Jon’s cell phone wasn’t sufficiently provocative and Brenda’s other prior stressors didn’t occur contemporaneously to her loss of control. Thus, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and Brenda appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-251-p-3d-820-2011
The Quimbee App features over 36,300 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-251-p-3d-820-2011
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
- published: 02 Mar 2023
- views: 79
1:57
United States v. White (1978) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
The Whites were convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. Phillip was also convicted of heroin possession with intent to distribute. They challe...
The Whites were convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. Phillip was also convicted of heroin possession with intent to distribute. They challenged their conspiracy convictions on grounds of insufficient evidence. They were convicted based on the work of two DEA agents who worked with a confidential informant. The informant bought heroin from Williams and concluded that Williams was selling for Claudell. The informant later bought small quantities of heroin from Phillip and discussed becoming a dealer for him. Phillip was later convicted of heroin possession based on Leeper's testimony that he purchased the drugs from Phillip. The court ruled that the chain of custody for the heroin was sufficient.
United States v. White (1978)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
569 F.2d 263
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-8820859
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
https://wn.com/United_States_V._White_(1978)_Overview_|_Lsdata_Case_Brief_Video_Summary
The Whites were convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. Phillip was also convicted of heroin possession with intent to distribute. They challenged their conspiracy convictions on grounds of insufficient evidence. They were convicted based on the work of two DEA agents who worked with a confidential informant. The informant bought heroin from Williams and concluded that Williams was selling for Claudell. The informant later bought small quantities of heroin from Phillip and discussed becoming a dealer for him. Phillip was later convicted of heroin possession based on Leeper's testimony that he purchased the drugs from Phillip. The court ruled that the chain of custody for the heroin was sufficient.
United States v. White (1978)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
569 F.2d 263
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-8820859
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
- published: 09 Jun 2023
- views: 10
2:14
United States v. White (2012) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
William White, a white supremacist, posted personal information about a juror on his website and was convicted of soliciting violence against the juror. However...
William White, a white supremacist, posted personal information about a juror on his website and was convicted of soliciting violence against the juror. However, the district court later granted his motion for acquittal or a new trial, but the appellate court reversed the decision. During the retrial, the government presented evidence of White's advocacy for violence against individuals he deemed "anti-racist" or "enemies" of white supremacy. The court provided instructions to the jury that speech is protected unless it incites an imminent lawless act. White's challenge to the district court's decision to use an anonymous jury was rejected.
United States v. White (2012)
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
698 F.3d 1005
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-12903736
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
https://wn.com/United_States_V._White_(2012)_Overview_|_Lsdata_Case_Brief_Video_Summary
William White, a white supremacist, posted personal information about a juror on his website and was convicted of soliciting violence against the juror. However, the district court later granted his motion for acquittal or a new trial, but the appellate court reversed the decision. During the retrial, the government presented evidence of White's advocacy for violence against individuals he deemed "anti-racist" or "enemies" of white supremacy. The court provided instructions to the jury that speech is protected unless it incites an imminent lawless act. White's challenge to the district court's decision to use an anonymous jury was rejected.
United States v. White (2012)
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
698 F.3d 1005
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-12903736
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
- published: 16 Aug 2023
- views: 5
1:58
Alabama v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-ove...
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Alabama v. White | 496 U.S. 325 (1990)
Imagine someone anonymously calls the police department and claims that you’ve got illegal drugs in your car. Does the Fourth Amendment allow an officer to pull your car over and ask you whether you’ve got drugs, based on the anonymous tip? The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Alabama versus White.
An anonymous caller told an officer with the Montgomery Police Department that an undescribed woman named Vanessa White was a drug dealer who would be engaging in a drug transaction later that day. The caller said White would drive away from a particular apartment complex at a certain time, in a brown Plymouth station wagon with a broken taillight. She would travel to Dobey’s Motel, which was four miles from the apartment complex.
Officers conducted surveillance of the apartment complex and noticed a car fitting the description given by the caller. They saw a woman get in the car and drive away. The officers followed her until it was apparent that she was driving in the direction of the motel. Shortly before White would have arrived at the motel, a police car pulled her over. The officer informed White that he had stopped her based on suspicion that she had drugs in the car. The officer then obtained White’s consent to search her car for the drugs.
Officers found marijuana inside the car and cocaine inside White’s purse. White was charged in state court with drug possession. After the trial court denied her motion to suppress the drugs under the Fourth Amendment, White entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving her right to appeal. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed White’s conviction, concluding that the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment. The Alabama Supreme Court denied review.
The state successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review White’s case.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/alabama-v-white
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/alabama-v-white
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
https://wn.com/Alabama_V._White_Case_Brief_Summary_|_Law_Case_Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Alabama v. White | 496 U.S. 325 (1990)
Imagine someone anonymously calls the police department and claims that you’ve got illegal drugs in your car. Does the Fourth Amendment allow an officer to pull your car over and ask you whether you’ve got drugs, based on the anonymous tip? The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Alabama versus White.
An anonymous caller told an officer with the Montgomery Police Department that an undescribed woman named Vanessa White was a drug dealer who would be engaging in a drug transaction later that day. The caller said White would drive away from a particular apartment complex at a certain time, in a brown Plymouth station wagon with a broken taillight. She would travel to Dobey’s Motel, which was four miles from the apartment complex.
Officers conducted surveillance of the apartment complex and noticed a car fitting the description given by the caller. They saw a woman get in the car and drive away. The officers followed her until it was apparent that she was driving in the direction of the motel. Shortly before White would have arrived at the motel, a police car pulled her over. The officer informed White that he had stopped her based on suspicion that she had drugs in the car. The officer then obtained White’s consent to search her car for the drugs.
Officers found marijuana inside the car and cocaine inside White’s purse. White was charged in state court with drug possession. After the trial court denied her motion to suppress the drugs under the Fourth Amendment, White entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving her right to appeal. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed White’s conviction, concluding that the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment. The Alabama Supreme Court denied review.
The state successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review White’s case.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/alabama-v-white
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/alabama-v-white
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
- published: 13 Nov 2020
- views: 2557
2:14
United States v. White (2011) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
The defendant is a white supremacist leader who posted personal information about a juror on his website and made threatening statements towards various individ...
The defendant is a white supremacist leader who posted personal information about a juror on his website and made threatening statements towards various individuals and groups, including Jewish people and anti-racist activists. The government accused the defendant of soliciting violence and inciting harm through his online posts. The case involves potential violations of laws related to intimidation, harassment, hate speech, and incitement to violence.
The most relevant facts to the court's analysis are the nature and content of the defendant's posts, including whether they constitute protected speech or solicitation of violence. The court must also consider whether the defendant's statements present a threat to public safety and violate applicable laws.
United States v. White (2011)
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
779 F. Supp. 2d 775
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-132050542
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
https://wn.com/United_States_V._White_(2011)_Overview_|_Lsdata_Case_Brief_Video_Summary
The defendant is a white supremacist leader who posted personal information about a juror on his website and made threatening statements towards various individuals and groups, including Jewish people and anti-racist activists. The government accused the defendant of soliciting violence and inciting harm through his online posts. The case involves potential violations of laws related to intimidation, harassment, hate speech, and incitement to violence.
The most relevant facts to the court's analysis are the nature and content of the defendant's posts, including whether they constitute protected speech or solicitation of violence. The court must also consider whether the defendant's statements present a threat to public safety and violate applicable laws.
United States v. White (2011)
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
779 F. Supp. 2d 775
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-132050542
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
- published: 16 Aug 2023
- views: 2