Good Arizona V. Gant Case Study Example

Walmart Stores v. Cockrell (2001)

Issue: Does the shopkeeper's privilege protect Walmart from the liability under the circumstances of the case?

Rule of Law: Given the notion of the shopkeeper'e privilege, this rule allows the supermarkets to detain, stop or conduct the investigation of the shoplifters in case of any suspicion exists. In this case the supermarket does not responsible for such false imprisonment if there are reasonable grounds for the denetion of such a kind, within reasonable time, while the investigations of reasonable person is provided in reasonable manner (Cheeseman, 2014. p.88).
Analysis: At first, the Court considered the elements of false imprisonment. It stated that Cockrell was detained by the officer of Walmart without his consent, while the justification for actions of Navarro was not established. Beyond the scope of the false imprisonment, the Court turned to the definition of "shopkeeper's privilege". This rule should be understood as follows: one person may detain the other in case he reasonable suspects that the other person has stolen or will attempt to steal any property. In this case, such actions of detention will have the legal justification. 
Conclusion: The shopkeeper's rule does not eliminate the liability of Walmart as the party to this dispute. Upon consideration of the merits of the case, the Court approved the submission of the plaintiff on the existence of false imprisonment. Besides, the Court concluded that Walmart was guilty in keeping Cockrell under the false imprisonment, while such actions do not fall within the scope of shopkeeper's privilege. Finally, the Court awarded the shop to compensate $30,000. (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cockrell, 61 S.W.3d 774, 2001). 
Nevertheless, it should be said that Navarro acted in the responsible manner. Being the employee of the supermarket, Navarro should have exercised the protection of the property in accordance with his contract and direct responsibilities. However, despite the fact that Navarro did not see the act of shoplifting, as the reasonable person, he could request Cockrell to present the evidence of absence of any steal. As to the ethical side of the denial of the liability in the case by Walmart, one may state in affirmative manner that supermarket was acting unethically. Supermarket is responsible for the actions of its employees and should protect their interests before the Court.

Issue: Whether the warrantless search of the car is justified as a search incident to an arrest?
Rule of Law: The warrantless search may be provided may pertain only to the person arrested in case he has access immediately to the zone which is subject to the search (Cheeseman, 2014. p.122)
Analysis: As the Court was requested to consider whether the police officers had the power to conduct the search of the vehicle of the applicant while ha did not have access to his car. Upon this submission, the Court examined the constitutionality of the search and identified that Gant left the car on the voluntarily basis without detention from police side. Given the fact that Gant did no have immediate access to the car, the evidence found in his car by the police officers should be suppressed. Therefore, the police officers acted in the manner that violated the Fourth amendment of the Constitution due to the fact that they did not have the respective warrant for such actions.
Conclusion: In its decision, the Court defined that the warrantless search of Gant's car had no reasonable ground. The Court concluded that warrantless search conducted on behalf of the police are unreasonable. At the same time such searches may take place in case it will show the additional evidence of the offense. In this case, Mr. Gant accident dos not constitute the exception falling within the lieu of reasonable causes of searches of his vehicle. 
(Arizona v. Gant, 2009)
Accordingly, the warrantless searches are allowed in order to prevent the hiding of the evidences on behalf of the persons that are arrested by the police officers. Besides, the search of the vehicle may be found by the Court legal in case the arrested person is infomed about it and has access to his car so that this person can have the opportunity to observe the actions of the police officers.
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

Issue: Is a naturally occurring segment of DNA patent eligible?

Rule of Law: The Court was considering that patents do not include the laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas. At the same time the groundbreaking, innovative and brilliant discovery does not fall within the scope of the paragraph 101 of the Patent Act (Cheeseman, 2014. p. 136).
Analysis: At the beginning of the consideration, the Court investigated the subjects of the patent protection and then examined the product produced by Myriad Inc. Then, the Court proceeded to the consideration of the contribution of the company to the scientific research.
Conclusion: In its decision, the Court ruled that the naturally occurring DNA segment is not subject to patent protection. It is difficult to state that Court provided affirmative or negative opinion as it stated that human genes can no be subject of patent illegibility. Meanwhile, the Court established that the creation of purely new product in the laboratory eliminates the opinion that this product is made by nature so that that the genes sequences received in such manner are eligible for the patent protection (Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 2013).
For use, this decision became the landmarke for further researches as the companies have understood that it is better to produce something within the laboratory as it will be possible then to receive the patent protection for this product. In addition, the government did not have to compensate Myriad Inc. as this company is private one, not under the state ownership.

«Is Outsourcing of US Jobs to Foreign Unethical?»

Outsourcing of U.S. jobs is not ethical as in this case the majority of the companies do not observe the compliance of the working condition and environment to the current legislation existing within these production facilities. While the companies usually disregard to provide the adequate working environment outside the U.S. territory, the exposure of violation of human basic rights can take place at these places. Furthermore, even the usage of child labor force is the usual practice within some Chinese factories that are outsourced by the American companies. For sure, the key benefits of the outsourcing pertain to the American companies that have decided to locate the production facilities in other states. In this case they diminish the expenses for the production of the foods and the further spending on human resources (Cheeseman, 2015).

References

Arizona v. Gant, 556 US 332 (2009).
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 12-398 (2013).
Cheeseman, H. (2015). Business law (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Pub.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cockrell, 61 S.W.3d 774 (2001)