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 fourteenth amendment states in the equal protection clause that states may not discriminate against any citizen for any reason, and must allow the same privileges, rights, and conservation. Hogan was on a mission to gain relief as well as compensation for the damages caused. The case was argued on March 22, 1982. The argument from Joe Hogan was proposed by advocate, Wilbur Colom. The petitioner’s side was presented by Hunter M. Gholson, in representation for Mississippi University for Women.
Decided June 19, 1961 Effect on the Civil Rights/Liberties: The high court said evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts.
Analysis of Rowell v. STATE 666 So.2d 830, 831 (1995) Level of Court: Supreme Court of Alabama/Alabama Criminal Court of Appeals Facts: Manuel Dee Rowell was arrested for illegal possession of cocaine following a police search of an automobile co-owned by him and a friend who has recently passed away. At the time of his death he has pending cocaine charges against him. The search that was conducted after his death was under a proper search warrant. During the search a matchbox containing crack cocaine under the carpet of the floor on the driver’s side, along with $800 in cash hidden in a boot in the trunk of the car. At the time of arrest Rowell was wearing a telephone pager.
1962 marked the beginning of a new era for the South. Baker Vs. Carr, a landmark Supreme Court Case, determined that malappropriated state legislatures were unconstitutional. The Baker Decision resulted in an increase of legislators from urban districts. Rural legislators, who were once in complete control of state capitols, could no longer dominate legislatures in the South.
In the article, “How California Became Unforgivable” by Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine, they basically describe six key factors that made California impossible to govern. They claim that California wields a "power with the damaged machinery of a patchwork government system that lacks accountability, encourages stalemate and drifts but cannot be steered." Basically, elected representatives in California have no authority, yet still hold responsibility. The six factors mentioned earlier include Proposition 13, budget initiatives, gerrymandering, term limits, boom or bust taxation, and the two-thirds vote. But how do these factors make California impossible to govern?
v. Clayton, held that the police officers did not infringe Mr. Clayton and Mr. Farmer’s rights under ss. 8 and ss. 9 of the Charter as their unusual behaviour gave the officer reasonable grounds to conduct a pat down search. This case is significant to us for various reasons. First of all this case shows us the circumstances, when a police officer has the right to detain an individual without a search warrant.
Whitney v. California Tylisia Crews September 22, 2015 Facts The parties of the Whitney v. California case was against petitioner Charlotte Anita Whitney and respondent, the state of California’s Criminal Syndicalism Act of California. It was argued on October 6th, 1925 and was decided on May 16th, 1927. The state of California filed a lawsuit against Whitney when they found out she was accused of helping begin the Communist Labor Party of America, a party that advocated violence to get a political change. Whitney was found guilty even though the constitution was the defendant’s defense.
When Weeks was arrested, police officers entered his home without a warrant by using a key and began searching it for evidence. The officers then turned over evidence to the U.S. Marshals that was used to get a conviction. Weeks appealed the conviction which eventually came to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled unanimously that the search violated Weeks rights under the 4th Amendment. This ruling also prevented local police officers from securing evidence by ways that are prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule and giving it to federal investigators.
Barron claimed that he has been denied his Fifth Amendment rights when Baltimore did not justly compensate him when they used his property. Mr. Barron took Baltimore to court and won his case and was rewarded $4500 for damages, but his case was then overturn in appellate courts. Mr. Barron then took his case to the highest law in the land. However, Mr. Barron’s case was dismissed by Chief Justice Marshall for several reasons.
Landmark Research on Amendment of Choice The case of the Fourth Amendment of dog-sniff case has been settled by the Supreme Court which has been in court three times in recent years. There was a 6-3 decision stating that the police officers didn’t have the right to use the drug sniffing dogs after a traffic stop without a warrant.
The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).
A high speed rail going across California, connecting Los Angeles and San Fransisco going through Bakersfield would not be a bad idea. I believe it would help todays economy significantly and would help create jobs. People from Bakersfield are not for the 68 billion dollar project because they are scared that it will with time depend on government subsidies to operate because there will be insufficient funds. But there are more than enough funds for this project. Accord to the Maddy Report, there are more than 36 construction companies, financiers, train manufacturers and operators from around the world expressed interest in working on the California train.
The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants.
"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.
