The Supreme Court stated, in Mathews v. Eldridge, that the right to be heard in a meaningful way “before being condemned to suffer a grievous loss” is a basic principle of our society. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319; 333 (1976) (citing Joint Anti-Fascist Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 168 (1951)). However, they proceeded to counter this by saying that due process was flexible and its procedures should be tailored to the particular situation. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319; 333 (1976).
On August 4, 1961 Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested for stealing money and drinks from a pool house in Florida. When he was arrested he was tried for his crimes. The 6th amendment states that if a defendant is too poor to provide a lawyer than he should be provided one by the Court, but Gideon was not given a lawyer. He was not given a lawyer because it says in the Florida law that lawyers are only provided in big felonies, not misdemeanors. So Gideon should have been provided a lawyer and was not.
Spring Branch I.S.D. v. Stamos Supreme Court of Texas, 1985 695.S.W.2d 556 [27 Educ. L. Rep. 640] This case examined the constitutionality of the Texas Education Code 21.920 (b) “No Pass, No Play” rule: A student, other than a mentally retarded student, enrolled in a school district in this state shall be suspended from participation in any extracurricular activity sponsored or sanctioned by the school district during the grade reporting period after a grade reporting period in which the student received a grade lower than the equivalent of 70 on a scale of 100 in any academic class. The campus principal may remove this suspension if the class is an identified honors or advanced class. A student may not be suspended under this subsection
Case Law Brief Presser v. Illinois , 116 U.S. 252 ( 1886) By: Ryan Garcia ADJU 203 Concepts of Criminal Law Class Dr. Bryan Silva, Professor Administration of Justice Department Center for Advances Technologies (CAT) Modesto Junior College March 8, 2017 Issue Before the Court: Can states issue laws that restrict citizens freedom to gather in a militia-style group while bearing arms?
The efforts Edina Broward made to research about her stolen painting will probably considered as diligent efforts which prevent statute of limitation from starting to run. Ms.Broward tried to find her stolen painting by many means. First of all, The police was notified by her as well as a private investigator was hired to help to find the stolen painting. Similar to Everett v. Rogers, where the owner of stolen painting informed the police and was going to hire private investigator.
On May 23, 1957, police officers showed up to a house in Cleveland and demanded to be let inside. They believed a man who was recently involved in a bombing was hiding inside. Dollree Mapp, the woman who lived in the home refused to let them in. Ms. Mapp explained to the officers that she needed to see a search warrant before letting them enter the home. They were unable to provide one, so they left.
The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.
Harel Tillinger In the case presented, Hopewell High School has a practice of saying a voluntary prayer before each football game in which the coaches may participate and these prayers take place on school grounds. A father of two football players on the team, sued the school district because his children do not participate in the team prayers and are ostracized for doing so. In the case of O’Connell v. Hopewell School District, New Jersey, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr delivers the opinion of the court.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez case. Texas public primary and secondary schools rely on local property taxes for supplemental income. These schools are designed to establish a minimum education threshold at each school. The San Antonio District in the representation of families residing in poor districts challenged this funding scheme by arguing that students were disadvantaged because their schools lacked the property used by other districts, and academic programs receiving government funding should favor all students equally. Having already talked the facts of the San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, I would like to discuss how this has been another topic of much attention within the Department of Education of different districts.
One of the greatest Supreme Court decisions is Brown v. Board of Education. Children during the 1950’s were racially segregated in public schools which violated the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment (“Brown v. Board of Education, par 1.) A significant amount of the United States had segregated schools in 1954 because the court case Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, states that segregated schools were constitutional as long as the black and white facilities were equal. The black families had to send their children to all-black schools that were usually miles away from where they lived. The schools were not as great as the white schools, and the buildings were often run down and dangerous.
The exclusionary rule was first established in the case of Weeks v. United States in 1914. During the trial, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence obtained by the law enforcement officer was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and will be inadmissible in federal courts. This rule later became effective in the state courts in 1961 due to the unlawful search of Mrs. Mapp’s house in the case of Mapp v. Ohio. As a result of this case, Mrs. Mapp was convicted for possession of obscene materials but later argued that the law enforcement officer could not use the materials in the trial because they were obtained without a warrant. Although the exclusionary rule is not an independent constitutional right, it serves many purposes such as aiding in the deterrence of police misconduct and providing solutions to defendants whose
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.
I A. B. Cantwell v Connecticut (1940) D. Jesse Cantwell and his son going door to door in their neighborhood talking badly to people about the religion of catholicism which lead to two people becoming angry. This leads to the Cantwells being arrested for breaking a local ordinance that requires a permit for solicitation and also for encouraging an infraction of the peace E. Were the Cantwells first amendment free speech rights violated when they were religious views were suppressed and did they encourage an infraction of the peace or not. F.The court ruled that you could restrict general solicitation but you could not put limitation based on religion and that if you did so it would be trying to silence someone's views.