Florence V. Court Detention Center Case Summary

Holding: (6-3) The search was reasonable and the judgement of the Supreme Court of New Jersey is

Escobedo tried appealing the conviction which the Supreme Court of Illinois later reversed the decision of the defendant being guilty stating “'(I)t seems manifest to us, from the undisputed evidence and the circumstances surrounding defendant at the time of his statement and shortly prior thereto, that the defendant understood he would be permitted to go home if he gave the statement and would be granted an immunity from prosecution’” (!!!!!).

Facts: Mr. Oreste Fulminante was arrested and imprisoned for a crime in Florida. While in prison, a confidential informant working for the FBI approached Fulminante and questioned him about the death of his 11 year old step-daughter. The informant, Anthony Sarivola offered Fulminante protection from the harassment and harsh treatment he was receiving in prison if he confessed to the murder of his step-daughter. Fuulminate subsequently confessed to the murder. Upon his release for the original crime, he also confessed to Sarivola's wife. Based on the confession received, Fulminante was charged with murder. He argued at trial that the confession was coerced and should not be admissible. Despite the

The Supreme Court case of Gonzales v. Castle Rock pertains to the enforcement of a restraining order by the Castle Rock Police Department, and the murder of three young children (Gonzales v. Castle Rock, No. 04-278, 2005). Previously, Jessica Gonzales sought a restraining against her estranged husband Simon Gonzalez because his behavior was scaring her and the children. Furthermore, listed in the testimony of the restraining order, Jessica revealed the facts concerning Simon's disturbing behavior beginning with his attempted suicide in front of her and the girls (Leung, 2005). Additionally, Jessica listed in the restraining order that Simon stalked and broke into their home on several occasions, which placed their daughters and she in fear

On June 19, 1961, the Mapp v. Ohio case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C. The situation addressed in court was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that people have the right to be secure in their houses, and it forbids unreasonable searches and seizures. Mapp took to court when police forcibly entered her home in Cleveland, Ohio without showing any warrant. The police suspected Mapp of harboring a bomb suspect in her home and possessing illegal betting equipment. After she refused to let them in, the police torn off the screen door and broken the glass to gain entry. Mapp argued it was an invasion of privacy along with a violation to the Bill of Rights and Constitution. While the police did not find either of the two things they were looking for; they did find other illegal material in

John Giglio was charged with passing forged money orders and sentenced to five years imprisonment. During the appeal, Giglio counsel discovered new evidence representing that the prosecutors had failed to reveal a promise made to its “key witness” that he wouldn’t be prosecuted if he testified for the government. The Court granted a certiorari to determine whether the evidence not revealed would require a retrial under the due process standards Napue v. Illinoi, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Evidence showed at trial, representatives at Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. learned that Robert Taliento, key witness and co-conspirator, was a banker teller and also had cashed several forged money orders. He confessed to providing Giglio with a customer’s bank signature card used by John Giglio to forge $2,300 in money orders. Robert Taliento handled and cashed the money orders on his machine. This was the story Taliento gave to the grand jury and John Giglio was prosecuted; Taliento was named a co-conspirator but not indicted on charges. Giglio requested for a new trial was denied by lower courts but The Supreme Court reversed it. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the evidence that wasn’t revealed obligated a new trial under the due process standards that has been created in the Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois.

At the age of 16 years old Alonza Thomas, a typical teenage boy, was given a 13 year sentence for second degree armed robbery. It all started when he ran away from home; his mother was upset with him so he left to avoid dealing with the problem. He met someone while trying to find a place to stay and he offered him a place to sleep and some hot food. When Alonza had finally decided it was time for him to go home and face his mother, they demanded that he repay them somehow. They held him at gun point, making it apparent that they weren’t going to back down if he went against what they wanted. The repayment came in the form of a job, the robbery that ended up sending him to an adult prison. Alonza Thomas stated how they had made him feel that he had choice, “he came back out with a gun. And he said, “You think you’re gonna eat my food for free? Live in my house and just walk out? And things that come free like that? No, nothing’s free.” He said, “No, you’re gonna have to rob this store.””

The court case, Kent vs. United States took place in 1966. This case was about Morris Kent, a 16-year-old boy who had been on probation since he was fourteen. Morris has just been arrested again for three counts of home burglary, three counts of robbery, and two counts of rape in the state of Washington. Because of the seriousness of his charges and the fact that he had been in court before, prosecutors attempted to have Morris tried in adult court. Because of this, Kent's lawyer told the judge that he had a mental illness while committing these crimes, he wanted Morris to stay in juvenile court, where the penalties would be much less severe. Alas, the judge didn't listen to the lawyer and sent Morris to be tried in adult court. While there, he was found guilty and sentenced to 30-90 years in prison. Morris appealed, saying that case should've stayed in

In September of 1961, a woman from District of Columbia had an intruder break into her apartment. While the invader of the home was there, they had taken her wallet, and also raped the woman. During the investigation of the crime, the police had found some latent fingerprints in the apartment. The police then established and processed the prints. The prints were then connected back to 16 year old Morris A. Kent. The prints the connected back to when Kent was first entering the system back in 1959 for his earlier crimes. Kent at this time had already been on probation due to crimes committed two years prior to this case. Morris Kent at the age of 14, had first come into contact with breaking the law when he was placed on probation for breaking

He takes a step in the ring dodges the hits. He dodges one last time and throws a punch straight to the jaw. Jack Johnson is the winner of the match. Boxing is what this Black Heavy weight champion is known for. It started way back in March 31, 1878 John Arthur Johnson was born to Henry and Tina Johnson. He grew up in Galveston, Texas with his eight other siblings. Even though his name is John he goes by the name of Jack or his nickname Galveston Giant. Jonson grew up not knowing there was a superior skin color. Him and his white friends would play together, eat together, and stay at each other’s houses.

In September 1976, during the course of ten days, the respondent, Strickland, planned and committed three groups of crimes, including three brutal stabbing murders, torture, kidnapping, severe assaults, attempted murders, attempted extortion, and theft. His two accomplices were arrested, and the respondent surrendered to police. He provided a voluntary statement and confessed to the third murder. He was indicted by the State of Florida for kidnapping and murder and was appointed an experienced criminal attorney to represent him.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution. 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

I knocked on the door, announced I was the Police, told Oleg he was under arrest

On November 2, 1734 an arrest warrant was issued for John Peter Zenger on the account of him publicly publishing a libel and misrepresentation of the Governor in his New York Weekly Journals. In attendance of the issue of the warrant was the Governor William Cosby, Captain General and Governor in Chief, Mr. Harrison, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Livingston, Chief Justice Delancey, Mr. Cortland, Mr, Horsmanden, and Mr. Lane. The warrant calls for the Sheriff of New York City to find and arrest Mr. Zenger. His reasoning in the warrant for arresting him is because it “tending to raise factions and tumults among the people of this Province, inflaming their minds with contempt of His Majesty’s government, and greatly disturbing the peace thereof” Essentially

On 01-02-2016 at 0200 hours I was dispatched to booking in reference to a subject with a warrant.