Chimel Vs. California Case Study

Title: Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Date/Court: The United States Supreme Court, 1973 Facts: This case deals with Clyde Bustamonte, who tried to defraud a check. At 2:40 a.m. local Sunnyvale Police Officer James Rand stopped a vehicle that had a burnt out headlight and license plate light. When Officer Rand approached the vehicle he found that the individuals Joe Alcala, Bustamonte, and Joe Gonzales were in the front seat. In the rear of the vehicle Officer Rand saw three older gentlemen, Officer Rand then asked the driver if he had identification and the driver (Gonzales) did not have any. Rand then asked the other individuals in the car and only Alcala had a valid license, after producing his license Alcala told the officer that the car was his brothers.

Case: Horton v. California Citation: 496 U.S. 128 (1990) Year Decided: 1990 Facts: After obtaining a warrant for stolen items from an armed robbery, a California police officer searched petitioner Horton’s home. The officer had described both the weapons used and property stolen in the affidavit for the search warrant, but the Magistrate issuing the warrant only authorized a search for the stolen property. Even though the police did not discover the stolen property, weapons matching the officer’s description were found in plain view and seized. Horton ended up being convicted of armed robbery after a motion to suppress the seized evidence was denied by the trial court.

Assignment 4.1: California Government in Crisis There are many obstacles of California politics, which contribute to our inability to live the California Dream. For example, California debts continues to escalate, due to our taxation system hasn’t changed over the past years. Hence, during 2012 there was a budget gap of 16 billion dollars, which was more than the total revenues receive for general funds. Since, our taxation system depends highly on the income taxes paid by capital gain, the stock market must increase, so it can create a surplus. If that doesn’t happen, the government must find another way to finance their budget.

This applies to Sam Wardlow’s situation in which evidence was founded illegally without a proper search warrant. Also, the weapon that was found in Sam’s bag does not relate to any prior crime that may connect him to. This is not in anyway, allowed for officer Nolan to have even stopped Mr.Wardlow. Possibly, if Sam was connected to a crime beforehand and if the officers did have a proper search warrant. Then there is no way Sam’s rights were violated.

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Facts: The respondent Raymond Place was stopped by Federal Agents (DEA) upon his arrival into LaGuardia Airport on a Friday afternoon. The respondent refused to consent to the search of his luggage. His luggage was seized by the agents under suspicion they contained narcotics. The respondent was informed the agents would be obtaining a search warrant from a judge.

The following essay will outline the variances of two case” Illinois v. Gates and Spinelli v. United States. It will discuss the Supreme Court requires to establish probable cause for a warrant. Illinois v. Gates In Illinois v. Gates, law enforcement received a letter (that was anonymous) stating that the Gate family was in the drug transporting business, and operating between the states of Florida and Illinois. Upon investigation, law enforcement discovered that Gates had made the purchase of an Air Line ticket, traveling to Florida.

The Majority of the court 's decision includes McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. The court had to decide in this case whether the seriousness of an offence or knowing that one might be a threat to public safety can be a justification to stop anyone without having solid evidence against them. The court stated that both Mr. Clayton and Mr. Farmer were guilty of carrying concealed weapons in a public place. The police had the right to search them even though their car didn’t match the description described by the 911 caller because the officers have to be consistent with their duty towards public safety and act in accordance to the seriousness of the

They came back a few hours later bringing more officers, and forced their way into her home. Ms. Mapp contacted her lawyer regarding the matter and asked one more to see some sort of warrant allowing them to enter the home. One officer threw up a piece of paper that he claimed was a warrant, Ms. Mapp grabbed it and hid it in her shirt. One officers had forced entry into the home,

In Chapter 15 of "California Government and Politics Today," Mona Field takes readers on a thought-provoking journey through the myriad challenges faced by the state of California. This review aims to critically assess the chapter's content, focusing on its exploration of future challenges and the proposed solutions to address these pressing issues. By evaluating the strengths and potential limitations of Field's analysis, this essay seeks to shed light on the completeness of the chapter's discourse on California's future challenges. Understanding the Challenges Chapter 15 provides a comprehensive analysis of the multifaceted challenges confronting California in the contemporary era. Field adeptly covers a diverse range of issues, spanning

Whitney v. California Tylisia Crews September 22, 2015 Facts The parties of the Whitney v. California case was against petitioner Charlotte Anita Whitney and respondent, the state of California’s Criminal Syndicalism Act of California. It was argued on October 6th, 1925 and was decided on May 16th, 1927. The state of California filed a lawsuit against Whitney when they found out she was accused of helping begin the Communist Labor Party of America, a party that advocated violence to get a political change. Whitney was found guilty even though the constitution was the defendant’s defense.

In Cal’s case, on determining who he can file a lawsuit against and who would be liable for his injuries would be first be Anne. Anne goes first because she was the one that made the final impact and that incident was the one that cause Cal to loose both of his legs. So Cal can sue Anne, for being the reason he can’t walk now. Even though Cal was in a car accident minutes before that didn’t cause his legs just minor injuries. Anne would be liable for any and all expenses, any pain and suffering and also if the incident made him loose income from the injury.

This ruling is controversial because many say that this will let guilty people go free on police carelessness, while others say that the constitution is not a technicality and allows for the equal prosecution of all

An officer may only be allowed to search a person 's personal belongings if their reasoning is associated with a lawful arrest and if they have a probable cause to search (Matthews). After it being a huge deal in New York, other cities and states began embracing the use of stop-and-frisk as it began growing around the United States. In the 1950s police officials in other cities took up, and expanded, the stop-and-search tactics by using the LAPD to embrace the theory of crime

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.

PARTIES INVOLVED Kinney Kinmon Lau on behalf of the 1,800 non-English speaking students filed a suit against the San Francisco Unified School District. FACTS After a mandated integration of the San Francisco school system following a court order in 1971, a report was stated that in the San Francisco Unified School District there were approximately 2,800 students of Chinese decent in their school system that did not speak English. An estimated 1,000 students were receiving language support while the remaining 1,800 students were not receiving any additional support.