Recommended: California high speed rail case study
On Feb. 2, 2002 a couple from Phoenix left on a trip to Tucson and were never heard from again – but now, a little more than 16 years later, Brian James Ferry stands accused of the alleged murders of Charles Martin Russell and Catherine Nelson. According to the Nicol Green, a prosecuting lawyer, Russell and Nelson drove up to Tucson to purchase a motorcycle being sold by Ferry. He had placed a false advertisement in the Arizona Republic and was selling the nonexistent motorcycle for $12,000.
The main facts of the case California v. Greenwood are that in the beginning of 1984, the police of Laguna Beach, California had information that gave them reason to believe that a certain person, Billy Greenwood, was dealing drugs. A police officer named Jenny Stracner told the garbage collectors to bring the trash from Greenwood’s residence to the police station so that they could go through the garbage to find if there was evidence of drug dealing. They did. They then obtained a warrant to search the house, and found more evidence. The police then arrested Greenwood.
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) 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. Facts: The respondent Raymond Place was stopped by Federal Agents (DEA) upon his arrival into LaGuardia Airport on a Friday afternoon. The respondent refused to consent to the search of his luggage. His luggage was seized by the agents under suspicion they contained narcotics. The respondent was informed the agents would be obtaining a search warrant from a judge.
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.
Worcester v. Georgia By Sydney Stephenson 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. Over time Worcester became a close friend of the Cherokee leaders and advised them about their political and legal rights under the Constitution and federal-Cherokee treaties.
Case: Horton v. California Citation: 496 U.S. 128 (1990) Year Decided: 1990 Facts: After obtaining a warrant for stolen items from an armed robbery, a California police officer searched petitioner Horton’s home. The officer had described both the weapons used and property stolen in the affidavit for the search warrant, but the Magistrate issuing the warrant only authorized a search for the stolen property. Even though the police did not discover the stolen property, weapons matching the officer’s description were found in plain view and seized. Horton ended up being convicted of armed robbery after a motion to suppress the seized evidence was denied by the trial court.
In 1967, William Baird was arrested after giving away vaginal foam to a 19 year old woman following a lecture at Boston University about contraceptives and over-population. At the time, in Massachusetts, it was felony offense to disburse birth control methods to unmarried men or women. Eventually, Eisenstadt v. Baird was heard in the United States Supreme Court in 1972. In a 6-to-1 judgement, the Court ruled against the Massachusetts statute, but it was not in aggreeance with the due process of Griswold v. Connecticut, instead it was the Equal Protection Clause that was the deciding factor as reported by Justice William J. Brennan.
The United States v. Lopez case was about Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade student from San Antonio, who came to school carrying a hidden weapon. Under Texas law he was charged with possession of a firearm. Later on he was dismissed of this violation and was later charged with “federal criminal statute”. He was found violating “ The Gun-Free School Act”, which was created in 1990. His sentence was 6 months in prison and two years of being supervised while being released.
In the Riley v. California, there are two cases. In the first case, the defendant is David Riley. Riley was stopped by police due to the traffic violation. Then, police also find that Riley’s license had been suspended. Police impounded his car and search in the car.
SUMMARY In this landmark case Allan Bakke, a white applicant to the University of California, Davis Medical School, sued claiming his denial of admission on racial grounds was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The standing rule at the time was that race may be a factor in determining admission to educational institutions; however it cannot be the sole determining factor. FACTS OF THE CASE The University of California, Davis Medical School had been reserving 16 spots in each class out of 100 for disadvantaged minorities.
Affirmative action was designed by the federal government and seemed to be a strong tactic but there are many imperfections in this policy. For example, California vs Bakke is a famous court case based off of reverse discrimination. A white male by the name Allan Bakke was denied admission to The University of California medical school. Instead of picking Bakke the school accepted a less qualified black male because the school must accept at least 16 minorities out of 100 into the medical program. The university uses race as an aid to admit minorities and increase diversity instead of accepting well qualified individuals.
The 14th Amendment right to equal protection as recognized under Baker v Carr designed on the surface to ensure fair participation in the democratic process, however, it is more so a check on the majority. As Baker v Carr introduces, the 14th Amendment does not cover all types of discrimination. For example, discrimination by the means of improper districting of a state, intentional or not, is not covered by the Constitution. However, what the 14th Amendment does do effectively is put a check on the majority will through rights. The majority rules and the only way to prevent this is through rights, which dictate what people are and are not allowed to do.
41. 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.
Vocabulary.com defines proposition as a proposed plan of action. Each proposition was made to help, educate, and even fight against certain benefits. The 3 propositions that were passed in the 1990 was Proposition 187, Proposition 290, and Proposition 227. Proposition 187 was concerning illegal immigrants; Proposition 290 was concerning public places to stop discriminating; and lastly Proposition 227 where English was taught as a secondary language. Each of these propositions had its own historical value.
"The State of California versus Scott Lee Peterson (Case number 1056770, 2005)", was an interesting case. This case was interesting because Laci was a very beautiful and seemingly young, friendly, and happily pregnant woman with lots of friends. Her husband, although attractive, had a kind of macho tough guy womanizer type of persona about himself. It is hard to believe or fathom someone being so cruel as to kill their pregnant wife, regardless of their marital problems. Laci came up missing on December 24, of 2002, the day before Christmas.
