Recommended: California death penalty research paper
Title: Chimel v. California Date/Court: United States Supreme Court, 1969 Facts: This case deals with Ted Chimel, who they suspected robbed a local coin shop. On September 13, 1965, several officers from Santa Ana came to the home of Chimel with an arrest warrant for his expected involvement in the burglary. The officers arrived at the door and identified themselves to Chimel’s wife and asked if they could come into the home, she agreed and showed them into the house. While in the house the officers waited 10-15 minutes until Chimel came home from work.
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.
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.
Parties: Ted Chimel (Plaintiff) v. The State of California (Defendant) Facts: The Police Officers arrived at the Plaintiff’s house with an arrest warrant for the alleged crime he had committed. The Plaintiff was not at home and his spouse let them in until Chimel return. Upon the Plaintiff entering the house, the police arrested him and request permission to search the house. The Plaintiff denied the request to search the house, but the police officers proceeded to search the house.
The present report has been prepared by myself Guadalupe Centeno on the basis of my observations carried out on March 27, 2018, at the Larson Justice Center during the Kelly Cashman VS California court case. This court case trial is being executed since the party Kelly Cashman is being charged with a DUI. The prosecutor is the attorney named Sara Beller, the defense attorney’s name is Mr. Miller, and the judge was named Otis Sterling. During this court case, two witnesses named Christine Rosas and Holy Sanchez. Christine Rosas presented her testimony and three pieces of evidence, while Holy Sanchez also presented her testimony and one piece of evidence.
People Of The State Of California v. Brock Turner Brock Turner was a twenty Year old Stanford law student. He was on the all American swim team three years in a row and was riding on a swimming scholarship. To say the least he was a very bright young man who seemed to have an even brighter future ahead. That was all before he made the choice to sexually assault an unconscious and intoxicated female student.
The case that Stephen G. Breyer that he was really active in was United States v. Lopez. This case a twelfth grader bring a gun to school. “[He was] charged under Texas law with possession of a firearm on school premises.” (Tobin 96) The state’s charges were dropped when federal agents accused him of breaking the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990. The Boy ended up getting probation.
MILLERSBURG — Despite a plea for leniency expressed by the victim, a Sugarcreek man was unable to overcome a long history of criminal convictions and a bond violation when a Holmes County judge on Wednesday sentenced him to prison for making unwanted phone calls and threats to several members of a family over a period of months. David Lamar Schrock, 43, of 2578 State Route 39, previously pleaded guilty in Holmes County Common Pleas Court to two counts of telephone harassment and one count of menacing by stalking. In exchange for his guilty plea, the state agreed to dismiss two additional counts of telephone harassment and three counts of menacing by stalking. The charges are made more serious because Schrock was convicted, in January 2016,
• Iowa Congressman Steve King filed an amendment to a Treasury Department funding bill to prohibit the department from redesigning currency to showcase Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill. He added the effort to replace Andrew Jackson was “liberal activism on the part of the president that’s trying to identify people by categories.” (I recall Reason doing a fair amount of coverage when the Tubman news first broke, so this could be a good follow-up) http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/house-could-vote-to-block-harriet-tubman-from-20-bill-224637 • In November, Californians will have the opportunity to repeal the state’s death penalty law. The measure is likely to compete with an initiative that seeks to speed up cases where the death penalty is
California Gov. Jerry Brown signed an amendment covering libel retraction and damages last month, creating the consistent treatment of print and online publications. Assembly Bill 998 replaces the term “newspaper” with “daily or weekly news publication.” This alteration extends libel protections to online daily or weekly publications which were not protected under the original legislation. Section 1 of AB 998 states “it is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that weekly and online publications are afforded the same protection under Section 48a of the Civil Code as is afforded to a daily newspaper to the extent that the weekly and online publications perform the same news-disseminating function as a daily newspaper.”
Adam Cohen presents a very interesting topic to not only fellow historian, but to as well the average citizen. In his book he talks about the Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell. Cohen is trying to inform the reader just how cruel and inhumane the United Sates was at one point. The Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell was an argument of wither or not the United stated should practice sterilization of young women. He does a great job going through details as to why the United States did this.
The Supreme Court priorities from the time period of 1790 to 1865 were establishing the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was instrumental in founding the Federal Court System. The framers believed that establishing a National Judiciary was an urgent and important task. After the installation of Chief Justice John Marshall who “used his dominance to strengthen the court 's position and advance the policies he favored” (Baum 20). However, in the decision of the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 was an example of the power he exuded “in which the Court struck down a Federal statute for the first time” (Baum 20). This created some internal conflict between Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson, however Marshall was able to diffuse this with
The first major court case to influence our treatment of juveniles today was the Kent v. United States. The case overall, made an impact on the treatment of juveniles today because now juveniles have a right to an attorney, the parents must be notified and either parents or a lawyer must be present during an interrogation, and juveniles must be reminded of his or her right to silence. The main thing that this case influenced was that courts must allow juveniles the right to defend themselves and to be heard when transferring a juvenile over to the adult system. A second major court case was In re Gault.
“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. ”(Martin Luther King, Jr.) Most people were racist but now since the civil rights have been established most have stopped being racist and moved on. Three supreme court case decisions influenced the civil rights movements by letting more and more poeple know what the Supreme Court was doing to African Americans,and of the unfair him crow laws:(Dred Scott v. Sanford,Plessy v. Ferguson,Brown v. Board of Education). Dred Scott v. Sanford Is a case that most people felt that Dred Scott had an unfair charge against him.
"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.
