Fields felt that his First Amendment rights had been violated. He appealed his case to the court of appeals. He argued that it was okay to falsify his claims, because he they were about him. He didn’t harm anyone in lying about himself. The court of appeals overturned his conviction because they thought the Stole Valor Act was unnecessary.
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.
On October 14, 2008, a grand jury indicted Casey Anthony on charges of first degree murder, child abuse and aggravated manslaughter of a child, as well as four counts of providing false information to police. She was later arrested. The Judge, John Jordan ordered that she be held without bond. The charges of child neglect were dropped against Casey, and on October 28, Anthony was arraigned and pled not guilty to all charges. Prosecutors announced that they planned to seek the death penalty in
The Supreme Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio was very controversial. It changed how handle evidence and forced police officers to take special precautions when obtaining evidence. In the case of Mapp, Mapp 's attorneys argued that the obscene material found in Mapp’s house had been unlawfully seized and should not be allowed as evidence. Prior to Mapp’s trial the Supreme Court had ruled in Weeks vs the United States that illegally obtained evidence was not permissible in Federal Court. But did this same principle apply to states?
Apple is trying to protect the American people that own any apple product from the FBI. The FBI wants apple to unlock the phone from the San Bernardino 's but Apple is not doing it because it is against the 4th amendment. Since the FBI can’t get into it because Apple can not give permission to the FBI, also they don’t have any reason to look at the phone so Apple did not allow tat to happen. My opinion on this matter is that apple is doing the right thing, if the government was able to get a hold of all the information that a single person had on their phone, I am pretty sure people would be embarrassed because of all the personal information on their phones. If Apple gave them the right to look through their phone than the 4th amendment would be compromised and then that can start an up riot.
Riley v. California in 2014 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court argued whether the police has the right to search and seize digital content without a warrant, from individuals who have been arrested. So, the main question of the case was whether the evidence admitted at trial from Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment right. The court ruled, by a unanimous vote that a warrantless cell phone search during an arrest is unconstitutional. On August 22, 2009, the police stopped David Leon Riley for driving with an expired registration tag. Then, the officer proceeded to impound Riley’s car because he was driving with a suspended license.
Supporters of this decision argued that money does not corrupt, while critics believe that it is basically bribery (Montana). In 2011, the state of Montana tried to challenge the US Supreme Court decision by arguing that outside money caused corruption. Montana wanted to uphold their 1912 Corrupt Law, which banned corporations from giving money to campaigns and also acquired disclosure on who gave money to campaigns (Big Sky). The state did not want outside groups manipulating the message and ads of their elections or influencing voters. When it came to the court decision, the court made a 5-to-2 vote, stating that the state of Montana “cannot ignore the Citizens United decision” (Montana).
United States v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones should have had the same outcome from the Supreme Court. Both, former President 's violated the law and wanted to use presidential privileges to dismiss their cases. In the United States v. Nixon, the Court had the right to order the President to relinquish the tapes to Congress to use as evidence for the trial against the seven members held accountable. Those accused were owed a duty by the Court to be given a fair and speedy trial. In the Clinton v. Jones case, the Court should have not granted the former President Clinton immunity because the general public needs to realize that not even the President can violate the law and get away with it.
Branch was charged with rape from examination of the victim and was later put to death after his eighth amendment claim was denied. Branch’s case is still talked about today because throughout the course of his actions he did not threaten or injury the victim (Branch v. Texas. Supreme Court Case Files Collection). But does that really excuse his
As a result police officers have become a major key in the arrests of many people of color. Alexander explains how police will stop and search people of color who are “suspected” of containing drugs or who look “suspicions.” Police officers are actually encouraged in their training to use racial profiling and when a person files a complaint the Courts always take the side of the police officer. As stated by Alexander, “The dirty little secret of policing is that the Supreme Court has actually granted the police license to discriminate” (130). Many would argue that police officers and the justice system are fair and that they don’t discriminate and that one does have a fair trial in court from all the lies the media and television shows feeds the people about the justice system and police force. However this is far from the truth, as Alexander explains in her book, most of the people being stopped and searched are people of color and a person of color is more likely to get stopped by police then a white person.
A news report and subsequent criminal complaint from the United States Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas allege the licensee on or about 02-03-2015 in the county of Sebastian in the Western District of Arkansas, violated Title 18 USC 2422(a), an offense described as; Attempted Coercion or Enticement: 18USC2422(a): The defendant did engage in an online conversation with and undercover officer in which the defendant made arrangements to travel out of state for purposes of having sexual relations with a minor. The Licensee was arrested in West Plains, MO. He was then held in the Sebastian County Jail in Ft. Smith, Arkansas under federal jurisdiction. According to the DEA, the Licensee was asked for voluntary surrender of his DEA
The officers learned the man, later identified as Harris, had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. The officers arrested Harris on the outstanding warrant and the government later charged him for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Harris argued the police officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights because they did
Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 and Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 imposed very similar factors and set down the some constitutional question for the court, however the outcome of the cases where completely different. The Bowers case originated in Atlanta Georgia, the Lawrence case had taken place in Houston Texas. In both cases local police officers responded to anonymous calls reporting burglaries of private residences, however when police officers arrived at the specified addresses they found a couple involved in homosexual sodomy. In both cases police proceeded with arresting both men and charged them with the respective sodomy laws, in both cases both men were convicted in trial, in both cases ended up before the United States Supreme Court on
The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure or information derived from the evidence from an illegal search and seizure will be inadmissible in court. Wolf v Colorado being overturned is an example of this. Police obtained Wolf’s appointment book with the information as to who Wolf’s patients were. The book is evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The police then interrogated some of Wolf’s clients.