United States v. White

United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that recording conversations using concealed radio transmitters worn by informants does not violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and thus does not require a warrant.

Facts and Procedural History

Criminal defendant White was convicted of narcotics charges in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The conviction was based on evidence obtained from recorded conversations in 1965 and 1966 between the defendant White and a government informant wearing a concealed radio transmitter. White appealed the conviction, claiming the conversations were recorded without his permission, that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy (see Katz), and the conversations were recorded without a warrant, violating his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Thus, White argued that the recorded conversations should not have been admitted as evidence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 405 F.2d 838, reversed the district court and remanded, and certiorari was granted.

Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas

Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538 (1989), was a decision issued by the United States Supreme Court clarifying the limitations of the Right to Trial by Jury.

Background

Melvin R. Blanton was charged with Driving under the influence of alcohol. His petition for a jury trial was denied and he was instead given a bench trial. Blanton appealed, arguing that his sixth amendment right to trial by jury had been violated.

Decision of the Court

The US Supreme Court ruled that Blanton did not have the right to a jury trial because the crime he was charged with was "petty". The court went on to elaborate: "offenses for which the maximum period of incarceration is six months, or less, are presumptively petty...a defendant can overcome this, and become entitled to a jury trial,..by showing that additional penalties [such as monetary fines]...are...so severe [as to indicate] that the legislature clearly determined that the offense is a serious one."

See also

Breedlove v. Suttles

Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937), is a United States Supreme Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of requiring the payment of a poll tax in order to vote in state elections.

Background

At the relevant time, Georgia imposed a poll tax of $1.00 per year, levied generally on all inhabitants. The statute exempted from the tax all persons under 21 or over 60 years of age, and all females who do not register for voting. Under the state constitution, the tax must be paid by the person liable, together with arrears, before he can be registered for voting.

Nolan Breedlove, a white male, 28 years of age, declined to pay the tax, and was not allowed to register to vote. He filed a lawsuit challenging the Georgia law under the Fourteenth (both the Equal Protection Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause) and the Nineteenth Amendments. T. Earl Suttles was named defendant in the case in his official capacity as tax collector of Fulton County, Georgia.

Lupșa

Lupșa (German: Wolfsdorf; Hungarian: Nagylupsa) is a commune located in Alba County, Romania. It is composed of 23 villages: Bârdești, Bârzan, Curmătură, După Deal, Geamăna (Szászavinc), Hădărău (Hadaró), Holobani, Lazuri, Lunca, Lupșa, Mănăstire, Mărgaia, Mușca (Muska), Pârâu-Cărbunări, Pițiga, Poșogani, Șasa (Sásza), Trifești, Văi, Valea Holhorii, Valea Lupșii (Lupsapatak), Valea Șesii and Vința (Vinca).

References

Coordinates: 45°56′N 25°18′E / 45.933°N 25.300°E / 45.933; 25.300

Motorola Razr

Motorola Razr (styled RAZR, pronounced "razor") is a series of mobile phones by Motorola, part of the 4LTR line. They were first developed in July 2003 and were released in the market in the third quarter of 2004. The V3 was the first and main phone of the series.

Because of its striking appearance and thin profile, it was initially marketed as an exclusive fashion phone, but within a year, its price was lowered and it was wildly successful, selling over 50 million units by July 2006. Over the Razr's four-year run, the V3 model sold more than 130 million units, becoming the best-selling clamshell phone in the world to date.

The Razr series was marketed until July 2007, when the succeeding Motorola Razr2 series was released. Marketed as a more sleek and more stable design of the Razr, the Razr 2 included more features, improved telephone audio quality, and a touch sensitive external screen. The new models were the V8, the V9, and the V9m. However, Razr² sales were not as good as the original, with consumers moving to competing products. Because Motorola relied so long upon the Razr and its derivatives and was slow to develop new products in the growing market for feature-rich touchscreen and 3G phones, the Razr appeal declined, leading Motorola to eventually drop behind Samsung and LG in market share for mobile phones. Motorola's strategy of grabbing market share by selling tens of millions of low-cost Razrs cut into margins and resulted in heavy losses in the cellular division.