Williamson V. City Of Houston Case Study

Briefly describe the 1984 case of Denice Haraway. Describe the Ada police mistreatment of Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot with regard to the case. Make connections to the Ada police mistreatment of Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz.

Worcester v. Georgia is a case that impacted tribal sovereignty in the United States and the amount of power the state had over native American territories. Samuel Worcester was a minister affiliated with the ABCFM (American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions). In 1827 the board sent Worcester to join its Cherokee mission in Georgia. Upon his arrival, Worcester began working with Elias Boudinot, the editor of the Cherokee Phoenix (the first Native American newspaper in the United States) to translate religious text into the Cherokee language.

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.

The rule violates the proposition that students have a fundamental right to participate in extracurricular activities. (Bell v. Lone Oak Independent School District, 507 S.W.2d 636)

The first case file with EECO by Tanya Conde girl friend of Samuel Varriano Maintenance #3 who was fired from Pitt University .The defendent 's in case Robert Godzik, William Franicola supervisor and Pitt University was dismissed .

The Williams v. North Carolina case is a Supreme Court case in which the court decided that the federal government determines divorce and marriage statuses between state lines. It casted doubt over the validity of thousands of interstate divorces. Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix, who were both married, moved to Nevada for six weeks to become citizens of the state, and filed for divorce from their spouses. Their spouses, Carrie Wyke and Thomas Hendrix, were unaware that the divorces were being filed. Once the divorces were final, Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix married and then moved back to North Carolina. They lived there together until they were charged by the state of North Carolina for bigamous cohabitation.

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.

Texas v. Johnson (1989) was a Supreme court case deciding whether or not flag burning is supported by “symbolic speech” protected by the first amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson is caught burning the American flag in Dallas, Texas in 1989 to protest Ronald Reagan`s policies. When Johnson had burned the flag during the protest the state of Texas arrested him for desecrating a venerated object. Although Johnson did not hurt or threaten to hurt anyone witnesses and spectators claimed to be seriously offended by seeing Johnson burn the flag. Most of the people in the courtroom were sided with Gregory Johnson supporting the fact that flag burning is considered as symbolic speech which is protected by the first amendment. The case was wrapped up

Recently, state-issued photo ID has been required in order vote since the law passed in the Texas legislature. This law has caused controversy as it brings up the question over the state’s power in the regulation of elections. “While pending review within the judicial system, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively ended all pending litigation. As a result, voters are now required to present an approved form of photo identification in order to vote in all Texas Elections” (votetexas.gov). The U.S. Supreme Court struck down on Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the Shelby County v. Holder case. Because of this decision, Section 5 was no longer enforceable, allowing states to pass

This complaint is based upon the allegation of sexual harassment, disruptive, hostile work environment & racial discrimination filed by Brandy Stockton against Dr. Gregory McClain, stemming from their working relationship at the University of Missouri Hospital. Stockton received repeated harassing / threatening phone calls, some of which started the day Dr. McClain resigned subsequent to a peer review. The caller threatened to chop her up and deliver the pieces to her family. A criminal case has been presented to the Cole County Prosecutor against McClain by the M.U. Police Department. They identified an individual in Texas as the probable source of harassing / threatening calls. McClain denies knowing the suspect, although 697 calls were linked between McClain and the suspect. A full order of protection was filed against Dr. McClain by Stockton resulting from the calls and stalking allegations. Dr. McClain denies all of the allegations.

In the case of Riley V. California, Mr. Riley was stopped on a traffic violation, which led to his arrest on weapons charges. The officer searching Riley’s incident to arrest seized a cell phone form Riley’s possession. There was information on the phone and repeated use of a term associated with a street gang. Hours later a gang detective examined the phone’s digital contents and based in part on photographs and videos found, the State charged Riley in connection with a shooting that occurred a few weeks earlier. They sought an enhanced sentence based on Riley’s gang membership. He was ultimately charged with connection to an earlier shooting, firing at an occupied vehicle, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and attempted murder. Riley

The period the affiants were involved in observing, documenting and piecing together different parts of evidence necessary to form a probable cause as to the conduct of the suspects is sufficient and meets the test of “acting in good faith” to obtain the warrant to search the person of the defendant and vehicle and are not in any violation of the defendant fourth amendment right to privacy.

July 22, 1998 Facts In 1983, Linda Williamson worked for the City of Houston as a police officer. In 1990, then Officer Williamson transferred to the organized crime squad where she began working a new assignment. Officer McLeod was also in the organized crime squad and was partnered with Officer Williamson, meaning they worked closely on a daily basis. Officer Willilamson made several allegations that Officer McLeod was harassing her to her supervisor, Sgt. Bozeman. Officer Williamson claimed that Officer McLeod engaged in a daily harassment that lasted for 18 months. Officer McLeod would demean her by making comments about her appearance, especially her buttocks and her breasts. Officer Williamson said that he touched her inappropriately, purred like a cat around her, and whistled when she would walk by. She also claimed that Officer McLeod made several attempts to peek beneath her clothes. Officer Williamson stated that she communicated to

Facts: A female police officer, Williamson, sued the City of Houston under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in which she alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment, and thereafter retaliation for reporting the harassing behavior. The female officer further alleged the behavior created a hostile work environment. Williamson maintains she was subjected to sexual harassment in the form of sexually explicit comments and behavior after transferring into the division. The individual engaging in the offensive behavior was her male partner, Officer Doug McLeod. Williamson stated the behavior continued for eighteen months and was comprised of unwelcomed physical contact and humiliating comments about her body and her appearance. Williamson asserted she informed McLeod that his behavior was offensive and on numerous occasions she asked him to stop. He refused to comply with her request for him to cease his behavior. Therefore, she informed their supervisor, Sergeant James Bozeman. Williamson alleged she voiced her complaint to their supervisor on multiple occasions. However, McLeod’s behavior was not addressed and it did not change; as such Williamson eventually sought and received a transfer out of the division. Williamson lodged a formal internal complaint with the Internal Affairs Division which resulted in

Case Citation: Linda Williamson v. The City of Houston, 148 F. 3d 462 (5th Cir. 1998). Facts: Houston Police Officer Linda Williamson was working in the Organized Crime Squad and was sometimes assigned to partner with fellow Officer Doug McLeod. Williamson alleged that over an eighteen month period, McLeod harassed her every day creating a hostile work environment. More specifically, Williamson stated that McLeod conducted obvious and demeaning inspections of her appearance. He made comments to her on how her body looked in different clothes and remarked specifically on the appearance of her buttocks and the size of her breasts. Williamson related that McLeod became bolder and would wedge himself into a cubicle beside her where he could pull her hair, lean over her, breath heavily into her ear, bump, tap or slap her. McLeod allegedly whistled and