The following essay will outline the variances of two case” Illinois v. Gates and Spinelli v. United States. It will discuss the Supreme Court requires to establish probable cause for a warrant. Illinois v. Gates In Illinois v. Gates, law enforcement received a letter (that was anonymous) stating that the Gate family was in the drug transporting business, and operating between the states of Florida and Illinois. Upon investigation, law enforcement discovered that Gates had made the purchase of an Air Line ticket, traveling to Florida.
To: Junior Associate From: Supervising Attorney Re: DC v. Blake Mr. Jonathan Blake, a new client of the firm, recently requested our legal services in a criminal matter. Mr. Blake was recently arrested for possession of a controlled substance by the Metropolitan Police Department. According to Mr. Blake, the facts are as follows: Jessie Smith and his wife are the co-owners of a residence at 3630 16th St. NW, Washington DC, 20015.
Alberto Gonzales v. Angel McClary Raich, 545 U.S Facts: California passed the “Compassionate Use Act of 1996” which allowed for ill residents to use medical marijuana for medical purposes. The respondents, Angel Raich and Diane Morson suffered from several illness that only medical marijuana could treat. They were growing marijuana in their home, and had their plants destroyed by DEA agents. The Defendant sued the Attorney General, arguing that Congress had exceeded their interstate commerce clause authority in legislating the behavior of a local citizen, consuming a locally grown herb in his own home, after the act was passed.
Matt Ritchey Mr. McAdam Law and Society 10/12/17 Gideon v. Wainwright Case Summary The Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright was a landmark case in Supreme Court history. It not only established the right to an attorney, but also a fair trial. The criminal case of Gideon v. Wainwright lasted from 1961 to 1963.
While John Merryman was in McHenry, his lawyer petitioned Chief Justice Roger Brooke. After one of Lincoln disobeyed the court. Chief Justice Brooke let out his opinion saying” only congress could suspend habeas corpus”, with that John Merryman was released from Fort McHenry. Due to Chief Justice Brooke’s ruling it was now ruled that only habeas corpus cases be dealt by only the president and congress from here on out.
He too sought release from a habeas corpus and denied once again. They did not find it violating any part of the Fourteenth Amendment at the time, "appointment of counsel is a not a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial. " This is what made them refuse the plea of the Sixth
Amnesty International has criticized the act for giving mandate to a system that can use torture, consuming the apparatus for judicial review created by Hamdan v Rumsfeld (548 U.S. 557 (2006), and thereby constituting a parallel legal framework below international qualifications. A significant part of the act was the amendment which retroactively rewrote the War Crimes Act, and made the policy makers as well as the implementers (i.e. CIA and U.S. soldiers) no longer subject to any kind of legal action under U.S. law for torture, which was previously defined as a war
Argued unconstitutional, completely necessary, and everything in between, it is a simple fact that Lincoln was rightly justified as president to push the limits of the constitution when suspending the writ of habeas corpus in order
Colin Powell was an amazing person. Being a two time Vietnam veteran, injured in both tours. As well as a winner of the Purple Heart, Bronze Star, and the Soldiers Medal. The amount of strength Powell exerted throughout his life resulted in him evolving into the person he is today. Colin Powell made the best decisions and did what was possible to the best of his ability.
Powell points to separation of powers as his reasoning. He states that Congress has “as much right to delegate [the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus] to one of the judges of the Supreme Court or to any other individual… as we have to delegate to the President of the United States ” since the power is specific to Congress alone. In fact, Powell points out that even if the president could suspend habeas corpus, there is no good outcome from arresting a citizen of the United States . The writ of habeas corpus only stops the court from forcing the government to put the prisoner being held on trial. The suspension of the writ does not give the federal government the authority to arrest non-military citizens in the first
Habeas Corpus Rights vs. the War on Terror Habeas Corpus is a centuries old legal mechanism enacted by the Magna Carta, signed by King John of England in 1215, and is an important part of the British Common Law tradition, and now, the American legal system. It is one of the foundations of constitutional democracy, and an internationally applied principle, mandating that a government cannot arbitrarily detain its citizens. Ever since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, however, the United States has been fully involved in a war against terrorism, and the application of Habeas Corpus is coming under question. Recently, many politicians, including the former Bush Administration called for a change in its applicability when relating to terror suspects.
Research Paper Grand Jury plays an important role in the criminal process, but it does not involve finding the guilt or punishment of a party. A grand jury determines whether criminal charges should be brought. If the grand jury returns an indictment, it is referred to as a true bill. If the grand jury refuses to indict the defendant, it is referred to as a no bill. The prosecutor instead works with the grand jury.
In its confines, lie at least 169 prisoners who hope to challenge their confinement under Hebeas Corpus. The prisoners of Guantanamo Bay hope to have their petitions granted, however, due to them being aliens and not being placed on US soil, these petitions are not granted and it was decided that the prisoners of Guantanamo don 't even have the right to petition the courts. Under the Detainee Treatment Act, the prisoners aren’t given the rights to petition the courts and they eliminated those actions with this act. This act was passed in 2005, however, under the Military Commissions Act, detainees are given a chance to plead their case, which tend to be about allegations of war crimes and to determine if an individual is an enemy combatant.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of the personal residences of citizens, and also outlines the right to privacy that is awarded to citizens of the United States. The fourth amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things being seized. Even after the ratification of the Fourth Amendment, it was permissible for evidence that was seized and collected without a warrant and in violation of the Fourth Amendment to be admissible in court. This remained the common practice until 1914.
Congress passed “the Military Commissions Act (2006), which contained a provision barring the federal courts from hearing habeas corpus
