Petitioner Vs. Joelis Jardines Case Study

Statement of Assignment You have asked me to prepare an office memorandum addressing the following question: Per statutory law and case law, was Mr. Darren Clavel’s Fourth Amendment rights violated when the police officers executed the search warrant? Issue U.S. CONST. amend.

Christopher Simmons was a seventeen year old juvenile from Missouri whom in 1993 along with two of his friends, Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, planned to rob and murder Shirley Crook in her home (Roper v. Simmons, 2004). On the night the crime was to be committed, Tessmer pulled out of the plan, and Simmons and Benjamin would continue on as planned. The two broke into the Ms. Crook’s home, robbed her, tied her up, covered up her eyes, then drove her to a state park and threw her off a bridge. During the trial, evidence, videotaped reenactment and testimony outlining the premeditated plan, allowed for the jury to easily convict Simmons of the crime. Even though Simmons had no previous criminal record and was a minor at the time the crime was committed,

Obergefell v Hodges 2015 Obergefell v Hodges (2015) is a landmark 5 to 4 decision in favor of legalizing gay marriage. James Obergefell petitioned the state 's ban on same sex marriage. He argued that it is a fundamental guaranteed under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

During World War I, Charles Schenck sent a copious amount of circulars over to the draftees. The circulars consisted of anti-draft sentiments and claimed that the draft was despicably supported by the capitalist system. Schenk basically told the readers to join him in protest. Schenk was unsurprisingly charged with conspiracy for his action due to violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by causing disruption in the military and attempting to prevent military recruitment. The main issue emerging from this case was whether or not Schenck’s circulars were protected by the First Amendment’s via freedom of speech.

Eduardo Velasco Reyes Professor: Hill Criminology 13 14 April 2016 Antonin Scalia in the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia one of the Supreme Court judge was born on March 11, 1936 in the town of Trenton, New Jersey. He was the only son of Salvadore Eugene a Professor of Languages at Brooklyn College and Catherine Panaro. She was a public school teacher and also the first Italian American generation to work as a teacher in the Unites States.

Exclusionary Rule, states that if any evidence is illegally obtain for any case cannot be used in court. The case of “Weeks VS United States” is one example of how the exclusionary rule works. (Explain the case) I personally think rule goes well in hand with the fourth amendment. But with the exclusionary rule some would say that it cancels out the Patriot act.

Depending on the context, search warrants are a controversy for example; when entering a residence with the correct procedures that the law enforcement officer makes. To get a warrant, officers need consent and signed paper from the judge and with the state attorney. Overall there is the fourth amendment that safeguards the protection of the people and the right to issue a warrant with probable cause. In nature, there are certain requirements of a search warrant and some denies that right to search freely.

The Fourth Amendment the Search and Seizure amendment was first passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 (National Constitution Center) that states the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures (National Constitution Center). For the first one hundred years after this amendment was This amendment of the Constitution has been used by both civilians and governmental officials as proof of why they believe an incident that occurred was fair, or unfair. However, there have been times when deciding the fairness or unfairness has not been crystal clear. For instance, the case of Tennessee v. Garner that was first argued on October 30, 1984, and later decided upon on March

In 2007, the respondent Xavier Alvarez attended a meeting as a board member in Claremont, California, where he introduced himself as the following: “I’m a retired marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor” (United States v Alvarez 1). In fact, Mr. Alvarez had never received said award, nor had he served in the United States Armed Forces. As a result of making said false statement, Alvarez was indicted under the Stolen Valor Act.

The Fourth Amendment provides defense against illegal search and seizures. Essentially, one can rest assured that the police will not simply enter his house without any cause or warrant, search until they find something incriminating, and then legally use that discovery to charge the person with a crime. Instead, there are many very specific rules and regulations about how something can be discovered and even damning evidence found incorrectly is thrown out (Katsh, 2013). This is an important constitutional right as it ensures that witch-hunts that aim specifically to find something illegal are never carried out and instead the law enforcement aim is to properly catch someone who is doing something wrong.