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.
Kentucky v. King 1 Audelio Camacho Professor Alva AJ 180 3-27-17 Kentucky v. King The Supreme Court Case of Kentucky v. King occurred on October 2005, when Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky did a “buy bust operation in which a confidential informant attempted to buy crack cocaine from a suspected drug dealer.” The undercover was police officer Gibbons. When officer Gibbons gave the signal that the transaction was completed, the police approached the scene with their marked police cars. Once they were close to the suspect, Officer Gibbons radioed in a description of the suspect and said that King had gone through a specific hallway at a apartment complex. As the officers got to the hallway, a door was shut closed and the officers smelled
Gene Brucker offers insight into the lives and minds of 15th century Italy through a court case about Giovanni and Lusanna’s involving the legality of their marriage. He utilized several primary sources to provide a descriptive narrative of this case. Even though Brucker used primary sources, primarily notarial sources, these show clear evidence of bias, and in turn these biases are reflected in his work. To begin with, Brucker’s primary material falls into the legal category, notarial sources, from Ser Filippo Mazzaei. Although these legal works supply the evidence and court battle that occurred, these don’t provide a clear voice to the defendant, Giovanni, nor the plaintiff, Lusanna.
The case of Mapp vs. Ohio is a case of illegal search and seizure. It went to the Supreme Court in 1961. It is important to today’s society because it might mean the difference between guilty and innocent. I agree with the Supreme Court because it is illegal to access private property without a warrant or consent. The case lasted until June 19, 1961.
1. Case Title and Citation ■ Washington v. Glucksberg 521 U.S. 702,117 S. Ct. 2258,117 S. Ct. 2302; 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 2. Procedural History The United States Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for any individuals to help another person to commit suicide.
Sukhsharn Kaur Johal Phil 4401 Dr. Nagel 28 August 2015 Loving v. Virginia This situation creates concern in that it brings up questions about how this case was handled by the State of Virginia and the Supreme Court of Appeals. Were Virginia anti-miscegenation laws constitutional?
The case of California v. Greenwood involves police who were investigating a potential drug trafficker, Greenwood. The police, who were acting on information that suggested that Greenwood could possibly be engaged in narcotics trafficking, obtained trash that Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his home. Considering the trash included items indicative of narcotics use, the police then obtained warrants to search Greenwood’s home, discovered controlled substances during their searches, and subsequently arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges. The issue in this case was whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of trash left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Facts: Two plaintiff, Griswold and Buxton, were the Executive and Medical Directors for Planned Parenthood League at Connecticut State respectively. They had been accused and later convicted and fined $100 each for violating the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1873. The Act illegalized any use of drugs, medical item, or any other appliance for the purposes of preventing conception. Griswold and Buxton had been found quilt of giving information, medical advices, and counselling to couples about family planning.
Mapp v. Ohio Throughout the last 70 years, there have been many cases that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided upon leading to many advancements in the U.S. Constitution. Many of the cases have created laws that we still use today. In the case I chose, Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials, four little pamphlets, a couple of photos, and a little pencil doodle, after an illegal police search of her home for a suspected bomber. No suspect was found, but she was arrested.
Within our Nation, interracial interaction hasn’t been the most forthcoming to equality and letting go of discrimination and segregation. After the Civil Rights Movement, certain aspects have gotten better towards the government changing and adding amendments and laws to make sure everyone had equal opportunities regardless of race, but there are still some state and local agencies that haven’t grasped the idea of equality among all. An example of this is the 1967 Love v. Virginia case that tried to incarcerate two individuals simply because they were an interracial married couple which violated the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause under Due Process. In 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard
Johnson, a former senator from Tennessee who had remained loyal to the Union during the war, was a firm supporter of states’ rights and believed the federal government had no say in issues such as voting requirements at the state level. Under his Presidential Reconstruction, which began in May 1865, the former Confederate states were required to uphold the abolition of slavery (made official by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution), swear loyalty to the Union and pay off their war debt. Beyond those limitations, the states and their ruling class (traditionally dominated by white planters) were given a relatively free hand in rebuilding their own governments.
The United States constitution and the North Carolina constitution were both created to initiate a form a government at their own levels, and to give those governments specific powers. Both constitutions have similar outlines of their executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and include an article that secures the rights of citizens through the legal systems. Although they bear conspicuous similarities, such as structure, the state and U.S. constitutions do exhibit differences as well. Possibly the most recognizable distinction between the two constitutions is that the North Carolina constitution has a basis of religion. The preamble states that the people of North Carolina are “grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations”.
Children Children remain a controversial issue in the law for women and occur frequently in debates today. The birth control movement started in 1873 with the Comstock Law, which outlawed the distribution of birth control information and devices through mail. This included birth control related items imported from outside the United States. The Comstock Law also outlawed possession of information about birth control, as well as possession of actual birth control devices or medications, including those for abortions or contraceptives.
State of Georgia V. Marcus Dwayne Dixon (2003) Marcus Dixon was a highly recruited high school football player. His life suddenly took a tragic turn when he was falsely convicted of raping a 15 year old girl. The elements around his false conviction could have been avoided with some reform to the criminal justice courts system. Dixon initially had many charges against him but were narrowed down to statutory rape and aggravated child molestation. There was much racial disparity surrounding the jury on Dixon’s case, in that the county that Dixon committed his “crime” was a predominantly white population.
Kennedy vs. State of Georgia Kennedy v State of Georgia 172 Ga. App. 336 S.E.2d. 169 (1984) Facts Appellant Henry Xavier Kennedy was charged with first degree arson in September 23, 1981. He appealed this case stating that there was not enough evidence for the jury to convict him. The building that he was found guilty of burning down was his own home, he had two mortgages out on his home and just renewed a home owners insurance policy five days prior to the cabin being burnt down that was a total of forty thousand dollars.
