In Commonwealth v. Newman, 429 PA. 441 (1968), on November 16, 1964, at about 11:30 a.m. four detectives went to appellant 's home with a body warrant for appellant and a search warrant for the premises. The complaint for the search warrant recited that the affiant, Detective John McCrory, deposed that there was probable cause to believe that certain books, papers, and other items used for the purpose of a lottery were in the possession of Henderson Newman at or near 721 West Mary Street. They forcefully entered the appellant 's home without announcement or purpose. The court held that, the forcible entry without announcement of purpose violates the Fourth Amendment. The fruits of an illegal search are inadmissible under Mapp v. Ohio,
BLAW 371 Kangni Chen Jan, 29,2018 Riley v. California Case Brife Statement of Facts: This was a consolidated case of David Leon Riley, Petitioner v. California; United States, Petitioner v. Brima Wurie, pertaining similar issues of warrantless cell phone searches incident to arrest. In the first case, the petitioner David Leon Riley had been stopped by police officers for a traffic violation. The police searched Riley’s incident to an arrest and seized a Smartphone from his pocket. At the same time, while doing an inventory search of the vehicle, police officers found two handguns under the vehicle’s hood, which prompting Riley’s arrest.
The fourteenth amendment states in the equal protection clause that states may not discriminate against any citizen for any reason, and must allow the same privileges, rights, and conservation. Hogan was on a mission to gain relief as well as compensation for the damages caused. The case was argued on March 22, 1982. The argument from Joe Hogan was proposed by advocate, Wilbur Colom. The petitioner’s side was presented by Hunter M. Gholson, in representation for Mississippi University for Women.
In the article, “How California Became Unforgivable” by Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine, they basically describe six key factors that made California impossible to govern. They claim that California wields a "power with the damaged machinery of a patchwork government system that lacks accountability, encourages stalemate and drifts but cannot be steered." Basically, elected representatives in California have no authority, yet still hold responsibility. The six factors mentioned earlier include Proposition 13, budget initiatives, gerrymandering, term limits, boom or bust taxation, and the two-thirds vote. But how do these factors make California impossible to govern?
In 1988, California v. Billy Greenwood and Dyanne Van Houten was about a suspecting of selling and using drugs in Mr. Greenwood house a narcotic officer told the man to bring her the trash bag which Greenwood had placed out the street for pick up, but as the officer search the bags she found drug paraphernalia which was used as evidence to convict Mr. Greenwood but the lower court revoked it because she search the trash bag without a warrant and that was a violation of the fourth amendment. but the trash bags was placed on the street were any child or animal can unseal it so he could not argue about his privacy if it was out in the police for anything or any person to expose the content of the bags but the court stated “ the police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public “ this means
1962 marked the beginning of a new era for the South. Baker Vs. Carr, a landmark Supreme Court Case, determined that malappropriated state legislatures were unconstitutional. The Baker Decision resulted in an increase of legislators from urban districts. Rural legislators, who were once in complete control of state capitols, could no longer dominate legislatures in the South.
In the aftermath of the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942. The order was a “protection against espionage and against sabotage to national defense material, national defense premises, and national defense utilities.” The order also allowed for military commanders to define military areas at their discretion. Congress also passed a law in conjunction with the order to penalize anyone who violated the imposed restrictions.
When Weeks was arrested, police officers entered his home without a warrant by using a key and began searching it for evidence. The officers then turned over evidence to the U.S. Marshals that was used to get a conviction. Weeks appealed the conviction which eventually came to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled unanimously that the search violated Weeks rights under the 4th Amendment. This ruling also prevented local police officers from securing evidence by ways that are prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule and giving it to federal investigators.
Barron claimed that he has been denied his Fifth Amendment rights when Baltimore did not justly compensate him when they used his property. Mr. Barron took Baltimore to court and won his case and was rewarded $4500 for damages, but his case was then overturn in appellate courts. Mr. Barron then took his case to the highest law in the land. However, Mr. Barron’s case was dismissed by Chief Justice Marshall for several reasons.
Landmark Research on Amendment of Choice The case of the Fourth Amendment of dog-sniff case has been settled by the Supreme Court which has been in court three times in recent years. There was a 6-3 decision stating that the police officers didn’t have the right to use the drug sniffing dogs after a traffic stop without a warrant.
The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).
The Exclusionary Rule: Enforcing the Fourth Amendment This section begins by explaining that in 1914, the court reexamined their previous ruling as to whether or not one could submit evidence to a court that had been illegally seized (Ingram, 2009). One specific case that the textbook references in relation to this is the case of Weeks v. the United States. In this particular case, the police had seized evidence that they had taken from the defendant’s residence without a proper search warrant. This evidence was then used against the defendant in court and he was convicted as a result.
"The State of California versus Scott Lee Peterson (Case number 1056770, 2005)", was an interesting case. This case was interesting because Laci was a very beautiful and seemingly young, friendly, and happily pregnant woman with lots of friends. Her husband, although attractive, had a kind of macho tough guy womanizer type of persona about himself. It is hard to believe or fathom someone being so cruel as to kill their pregnant wife, regardless of their marital problems. Laci came up missing on December 24, of 2002, the day before Christmas.
The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants.
A high speed rail going across California, connecting Los Angeles and San Fransisco going through Bakersfield would not be a bad idea. I believe it would help todays economy significantly and would help create jobs. People from Bakersfield are not for the 68 billion dollar project because they are scared that it will with time depend on government subsidies to operate because there will be insufficient funds. But there are more than enough funds for this project. Accord to the Maddy Report, there are more than 36 construction companies, financiers, train manufacturers and operators from around the world expressed interest in working on the California train.
