More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on school security
Essays on the reason behind the fourth amendment
The importance of the fourth amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
McCulloch vs Maryland Summary In case of McCulloch vs Maryland is a landmark case that questioned the extent of federal government 's separation of power from state government. A problem arose when the Second Bank of America was established. With the War of 1812 and it’s financial suffering in the past, the government sought to create a bank with the purpose of securing the ability to fund future wars and financial endeavors. Many states were disappointed with this new organization, one of them being Maryland.
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.
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.
US v. Lopez was a decision handed down by the US Supreme Court in 1995. The case was significant because it was the first ruling to set limits on Congress's power under the Commerce Claus in the Constitution since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Lopez, a student was caught with an unloaded weapon on school grounds that he was allegedly selling. He was arrested under the Gun-Free Zone law. Lopez argued that this law was unconstitutional as it blocked interstate commerce.
On April 3, 2015, Tammy Cleveland sued Gregory C. Perry, a doctor at Buffalo General and Kaleida Health the company that owns both hospitals involved in the death of her husband, Michael Cleveland. Tammy is accusing them of “negligent” care resulting in her husband’s death. The law suit claims that the “defendants’ alleged actions and/or inactions were morally culpable, actuated by evil and reprehensible motives, malicious, reckless, gross, wanton and/or in reckless disregard for her husband’s rights and her family’s rights.” (Dudzik, 2015) The defendants are contesting the case. Michael Cleveland had a heart attack on October 10, 2014, and was transported to the emergency room of DeGraff Memorial Hospital.
TLO accused the administrators of the school to be violating her 4th amendment. T.L.O. was founded guilty by the Juvenile Court. She was found as a delinquent and was given probation for a year. Than T.L.O. was found guilty in her second court ruling in the Appellate Division (New Jersey State Court System). Her third court ruling was the New Jersey supreme court.
May it please the court that the State of Louisiana violated the first and sixth amendments on the grounds of the Zeitoun vs State of Louisiana case. Zeitoun believes he was unlawfully discriminated against due to his race and religion, and imprisoned without a proper trial, kept in cruel and unusual circumstances, and his dietary restrictions were not met. Is it not stated in the first amendment that congress will make no law respecting the establishment, or prohibit the free exercise of a religion? If this is not in the amendment please correct me but I believe it is, and the government forces who put Mr. Zeitoun through much trouble and arrested him are in the wrong. Mr. Zeitoun says that he was mocked when he prayed and they said he was
1. Write a brief summary (one paragraph each of 3-5 sentences) of the New Jersey v. T.L.O. and Vernonia v. Acton cases. In the New Jersey v. T.L.O. the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district, after they found a 14 year old girl smoking in the bathroom. And got her consent to search her bag. In which they found different types of drugs as well as she had intended to sell.
In the case McCann v. The Ottawa Sun, 1993 CanLII 5507 (ON SC), the General Division of the Ontario Court was correct when stating the published words by The Ottawa Sun were insufficient to carry the Mayor of Pembroke’s action of defamation. At the same time, the columnist’s comments can be considered a humorous remark, which is a prove individuals in Canada have freedom of speech, which is the ability to communicate ideas without the interference of the state. To establish a cause of action for defamation, the plaintiff must prove: the statement published was defamatory, meaning the words bring the person’s reputation into hatred, contempt or ridicule; the words, in fact, referred to the plaintiff and finally, the words have been published, meaning somebody – other than the plaintiff – had access to the statement. In 1993, the Mayor of Pembroke, Terance McCann, claimed damages for libel against The Ottawa Sun
Kelo v. City of New London was a case that peaked my interest. To me, this is a classic case of government overreach. Let us start from the beginning. In 1997 Susette Kelo purchased a home in the historic neighborhood of Fort Trumbull in New London, Connecticut. She had always dreamed of owning a home on the water and painstakingly restored it to it 's former glory.
A Washington police officer stopped a student at the Washington State University after observing the student was carrying a bottle of gin. After asking the student for identification the student informed him that is was in his dorm room. The student, followed by the officer, then went into his room get his identification. While the student was searching for his identification, the officer noticed that the student 's roommate, had marijuana seeds and a pipe on his desk. The officer asked the students if they had additional drugs in the room and the students provided him with a box with marijuana and money.
The case of Jordan v. City of New London and Harrigan (1999) centers around Jordan bringing a civil rights action against the city and Harrington alleging that they denied him equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 4, Section 20, of the Connecticut Constitution (Jordan v. City of New London, 2000). The facts as presented to the court are that Jordan and 500 other police applicants voluntarily took the applicant screening examination for being a police officer in the state Connecticut in early 1996. The testing material included the Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam (WPT), which purports to measure cognitive ability. An accompanying manual listed recommended scores for various professions and
Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Facts: A high school freshman (T.L.O) had her purse searched by the Assistant Vice Principal at her school because a teacher found her and another student smoking in the lavatory. The Assistant Vice Principal uncovered cigarettes and marijuana. Procedural history: T.L.O. motioned to suppress the evidence because her Fourth Amendment rights were violated and was denied by the Juvenile Court stating the search was reasonable. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court agreed there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision stating the search was unreasonable.
Mapp v. Ohio Throughout the last 70 years, there have been many cases that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided upon leading to many advancements in the U.S. Constitution. Many of the cases have created laws that we still use today. In the case I chose, Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials, four little pamphlets, a couple of photos, and a little pencil doodle, after an illegal police search of her home for a suspected bomber. No suspect was found, but she was arrested.
Also the principal did not contact the parents as as well. Although the State had argued in the Supreme Court of New Jersey that the search of T.L.O.'s purse did not violate the Fourth Amendment, the petition for certiorari raised only the question whether the exclusionary rule should operate to bar consideration in juvenile delinquency proceedings of evidence unlawfully seized by a school official without the involvement of law enforcement officers. When this case was first argued last term, the State stated “The purpose of argument that the standard devised by the New Jersey Supreme Court for determining the legality of school searches was appropriate and that the court had correctly applied that standard. The State contended only that the remedial purposes of the exclusionary rule were not well served by applying it to searches conducted by public authorities not primarily engaged in law enforcement.” as reported by
