In 2013, the Supreme Court case Moncrieffe v. Holder refuses a Board of Immigration Appeals to removal from the United States of a lawful permanent resident based on a long term criminal conviction related to sole possession of small amounts of marijuana. The case finally made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which is considered a rather technical question of the interpretation of the U.S Immigration laws. Local police departments have long been accused of profiling Hispanic, African-Americans, and other minorities of race in law enforcement activities, including run of the mill traffic stop. Critics fear that immigration enforcement by state and local authorities will lead to increase of racism. Many Americans have shown concerns with the implementation of racist discrimination of the U.S immigration laws by state police agencies and local authorities. In 2006, a traffic police stop Adrian Moncrieffe on a federal highway leading to two federal cases. First legal proceedings following the arrest by the local police - a plea bargain habits and confidence in the criminal justice system of a Georgia drug crime hinging on ownership by a small amount of marijuana. Based on the belief that alone, the U.S government proceedings the process in immigration court for a removal requests of Moncrieffe. On June 13, 2006, in …show more content…
During a 2007 traffic stop, police found 1.3 grams of marijuana in his car. This is equivalent to about two or three marijuana cigarettes. Moncrieffe pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, a violation of Ga. Code Ann. § 16-13- 30 (j) (1) (2007). As a rule Georgia provides more lenient treatment for first-time offenders, §42-8-60 (a) (1997), the trial court withheld judgment on a sentence or impose any limit jail, and instead require that Moncrieffe completed five years of probation, then his charge would be removed
McCulloch vs Maryland Summary In case of McCulloch vs Maryland is a landmark case that questioned the extent of federal government 's separation of power from state government. A problem arose when the Second Bank of America was established. With the War of 1812 and it’s financial suffering in the past, the government sought to create a bank with the purpose of securing the ability to fund future wars and financial endeavors. Many states were disappointed with this new organization, one of them being Maryland.
Gideon V. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963) is the case I have chose to brief. According to US courts website “Clarence Earl Gideon was an unlikely hero. He was a man with an eighth-grade education who ran away from home when he was in middle school. He spent much of his early adult life as a drifter, spending time in and out of prisons for nonviolent crimes. ”The Petitioner within the case was Clarence Earl Gideon.
MILLERSBURG — A Wooster man on Wednesday was given a chance to avoid prison when he was sentenced to complete a treatment program for admittedly being in possession of methamphetamine. Shaun Hall, 38, 540 High St., previously pleaded guilty in Holmes County Common Pleas Court to aggravated possession of meth. In exchange for his guilty plea, a related charge of aggravated trafficking in meth was dismissed. Hall had faced up to a year in prison for the charge, and Judge Robert Rinfret imposed a term of 11 months, but immediately suspended the period of incarceration in favor of five years of community control, which includes the condition he complete a treatment program at the Stark Regional Community Corrections Center.
Because the arrest and drug conviction were not challenged in the federal removal proceedings, the Court in Moncrieffe v. Holder did not have before it the full set of facts surrounding the state criminal prosecution of Adrian Moncrieffe. However, examination of the facts surrounding the criminal case offers important lessons about how the criminal justice system works in combination with the modern immigration removal machinery to disparately impact communities of color. By all appearances, the traffic stop that led to Moncrieffe’s arrest is a textbook example of racial profiling.3 Over the last few decades, the modern immigration enforcement system has evolved into a criminal immigration removal system, with the U.S. government frequently
Facts: Earl Enmund along with a codefendant at the Florida Supreme Court, was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery as well as given the death penalty. Enmund was not present at the time of the murder, he was in the car waiting for the codefendant to return in order to escape. Under Florida law Enmund was made the aider and abettor meaning that he can be held to the same extent as the principal. Issue: Does the death sentence violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment for someone who did not commit the murder but was the getaway driver? Reasoning:
Before the Garner case there were four rules that dictated lawful deadly force by an officer on a suspect. The Any Felony Rule, The Defense of Life Rule, The Model Penal Code, The Forcible Felony Rule. The Any Felony Rule gave officers the authorization to use any and all means necessary to arrest a felon suspect or prevent them from fleeing. It was interpreted as giving law enforcement the legal permission to shoot an unarmed fleeing felony suspect. The defense of life rule states that police officers can use deadly force only in situations were their own lives or the life of another person are in danger.
Caption: Castro-Martinez v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2011). Facts: Mexican native, Rafael Castro-Martinez (“Castro”), resided in the U.S illegally since 1995. Castro, who is homosexual, was diagnosed as HIV-positive in 2004. In 2007, he went back to his native country for two weeks.
Business Law Case Study Essay: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S (2014) Facts: The Green family runs and owns Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and skills chain that has over 500 stores and they have over 13,000 employees. Other facts of the case are that the Green family has been able to organize the business around the values of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company as told by Biblical principles, one of which is the belief that the utilization of contraception is wicked. Also, the facts show that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), occupation -founded group health care plans must offer certain sorts of preventative care, for example, FDA-accepted contraceptive approaches.
Recently, state-issued photo ID has been required in order vote since the law passed in the Texas legislature. This law has caused controversy as it brings up the question over the state’s power in the regulation of elections. “While pending review within the judicial system, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively ended all pending litigation. As a result, voters are now required to present an approved form of photo identification in order to vote in all Texas Elections” (votetexas.gov). The U.S. Supreme Court struck down on Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the Shelby County v. Holder case.
Racism and racial discrimination has been a major issue in the U.S. since the colonial periods, where people have been treated differently only based upon their race. Although the civil rights movement opposed racial discrimination, the act of stereotyping individuals still continues till this day. Racial profiling by law enforcement is commonly defined as a practice that targets people for suspicion of crime based on their race, religion or national origin. A recent case, involving a young black man named Michael Brown is an example of how a police officer may act differently when facing an African American. “Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence Reveals Mistakes, Holes In Investigation” is an article written by Jason Cherkis’s and published on November
In Turner v. Safley (1987), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of restricting prisoners Constitutional rights. According to the ruling, the restriction of rights is Constitution if “reasonably related to legitimate penological [i.e. safety] interests.” Jeffs communicates sermons and regulations from prison, and limiting the community between Jeffs and the hierarchy of Short Creek attempts to severe ties between Jeffs and the FLDS. Satinder Singh, an ACLU attorney, said “…prisoners can limit communication, including mail and visits….However, the prison can’t suppress Jeffs free speech rights just because it doesn’t like what he has to say (Singh).” While Jeffs ideologies continue to dictate the infrastructure of Short Creek, minimizing communication enhances the chances of stopping the theocratic rule in Short Creek.
Almost a decade ago, Antoine Jones was tried, convicted, and given a life sentence for operating a drug trade. Of course, his possession of illegal drugs and involvement in the selling of illegal drugs is enough for his conviction, but Jones argues that the police secured evidence unconstitutionally. When the police first started observing Jones on suspicions of his participation in the drug trade, they fastened a hidden GPS device on his car, in order to track Jones to a so-called “stash house,” although they did not procure a warrant to use the device. The police were able to successfully apprehend Jones based on evidence procured from the GPS. Citing the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, Jones took his case to the Supreme Court.
In the 1980 's legitimate pressure including police quests was an immediate consequence of the war on medications battle. Officers were urged to stop and seize or look suspicious vehicles to put an end on medication trafficking (Harns, 1998). Be that as it may, setting this forceful methodology into impact had numerous negative results. One issue was that it put police on a slim line with the established laws. To nothing unexpected, practically no information evaluating how frequently police quests fall outside protected laws exist.
Originating in the Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court, the Supreme Court case of Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973), involved a Wisconsin State Agency (Gagnon, Warden v. Scarpelli, n.d.). Later appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, this case was ruled in a liberal direction and concluded that the earlier decision is affirmed (Gagnon, Warden v. Scarpelli, n.d.). Case factors include violations of the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and the need for counsel at a revocation hearing (Gagnon, Warden v. Scarpelli, n.d.). Moreover, in this case, the court held that parolees do have a limited right to counsel in revocation proceedings (Latessa & Smith, 2015). Furthermore, that the body must determine on a case-by-case basis whether counsel should be afforded, as counsel may not always be granted (Latessa & Smith, 2015).
In the article “The Statistical Debate Behind The Stop-and-Frisk Verdict”, John Cassidy analyzes the conclusion of Judge Scheindlin in which states that Stop and Frisk amounts to a policy of indirect racial profiling. In the analysis it is mentioned that Judge Scheindlin feels that the these methods of approach to prevent crime is unconstitutional. She challenges this by using the four and fourteenth amendment which police violate with stop-and-frisk which is an unreasonable search, and the discrimination towards Blacks and Latinos by being stopped a lot more frequently than whites, which is not equal protection under the law. Ultimately Cassidy’s report is to convey Judge Scheindlin’s stance on the method of policing being used today.