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.
Klopfer vs North Carolina In 1967, Peter Klopfer, was an African-American biology professor at the University of Duke in North Carolina. One evening, he was present at a nonviolent sit in; which lead to his arrest later on for trespassing. This incident lead him all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court on March 13.
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.
Ronald Watts, 48 years old, a District tactical sergeant, and a patrol officer named Kallatt Mohammed, 47 years old, were both parts of the 2nd District tactical team in the Chicago Police Department. On the eve of February 13, 2012, both officers were formally charged in the U.S. District Court of Chicago by the Northern District of Illinois United State Attorney, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, with government funds theft. Mr. Watts was an 18-year police veteran and Mr. Mohammed was with the Chicago PD for 14 years. Their arrest was due to unseal complaints of police criminal misconduct by two whistleblower officers, Shannon Spalding and Daniel Echeverria , followed by a thorough investigation of, special of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert D. Grant and the police department’s Internal Affairs Division.
The court cases Goldberg and Wheeler do not stand for the proposition that only welfare benefits for people in extreme circumstances are entitled to pre-termination hearings. However, this is one situation where cutting off benefits with little or no notice could affect the well-being of the family or person. Any programs that offer they type of assistance people rely on to survive could benefit from pre-termination hearings, not just the welfare program. Welfare is one of the main public assistance programs, although I think housing assistance and food stamps might fall into the welfare category, they are also in need of a pre-termination hearing. In the Goldberg and Wheeler cases, California and New York did not want to give anyone a hearing
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.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Facts: Two plaintiff, Griswold and Buxton, were the Executive and Medical Directors for Planned Parenthood League at Connecticut State respectively. They had been accused and later convicted and fined $100 each for violating the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1873. The Act illegalized any use of drugs, medical item, or any other appliance for the purposes of preventing conception. Griswold and Buxton had been found quilt of giving information, medical advices, and counselling to couples about family planning.
The Case of Sibron v. The State of New York Martin, a New York police officer on patrol, in 1967, observed Sibron having conversations with multiple known drug addicts ("Sibron v. New York - ACLU Pros & Cons - ProCon.org," 2009). Watching Sibron go into a restaurant, the officer approached Sibron inside and ordered him to come outside. The officer told Sibron “You know what I am after.” Sibron reached into his pocket and the officer simultaneously reached in after him, pulling up multiple little bags containing heroine ("Sibron v. New York - ACLU Pros & Cons - ProCon.org," 2009).
The New Jersey vs T.L.O. case is a controversial case that many people have different opinions about. This case led to many different opinions and thoughts about students privacy and rights at school. A New Jersey school district brought the case to the Supreme Court after the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the search planted on T.L.O. was against the Fourth Amendment. Well, actually the search was not against the Fourth Amendment. New Jersey’s search planted on T.L.O. was not against the Fourth Amendment.
There were many court cases that were discussed in class regarding the mob versus the individual. The most important ones were the United States v. Schwimmer, Roe v. Wade, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, and Brown v. Board of Education. In all but one of the cases above, the Mob (the government) used its power to stop the individual from pursuing their American dream. The individual was right in all of the cases because they had the right to express themselves and pursue their dream; and the government had to right to stop them from following it. Starting with the Schwimmer case, the individual was right because the government was not giving her a valid reason as to why they were denying her citizenship.
Before taking a look at this case, think about the following questions. Do students have the same rights under the 4th amendment as adults? , What are students’ rights while being searched on school grounds?, and What guidelines do administrators and teachers need to follow as a result of New Jersey v. T.L.O? The case of New Jersey vs T.L.O involved two freshmen high schoolers who were caught using narcotics in the restroom by a teacher. The teacher took the students to the principal who then asked the students about the incident.
The Dred Scott v. Sandford case had the greatest impact on Race Relations in America because it created a legitimate definition of the citizenship. Scott, a former slave, stated that because of his occupancy in a free state, he is a free man. The other side argued that Scott was still a slave and according to the fifth amendment, no person (master) can be deprived of their property. The initial impact of the case was in favor of the slave owner but this decision was overturned by the adoption of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment. The thirteenth amendment ended slavery and the fourteenth amendment granted citizenship to everyone born or naturalized in the United States included former slaves who had been freed after the Civil War.
The duty of any criminal prosecutor is to seek justice. A conviction is the end of justice being served prior to sentencing; however justice cannot be served if an innocent person is found guilty. Even though the prosecutor(s) are there to represent the public and has the duty to aggressively pursue offenders for violations of state and federal laws, they shall never lose sight or their own moral compass of their main purpose is to find the truth. In the pursuit of truth, the United States Supreme Court has developed or made rulings in reference to several principles of conduct which have to be followed by all prosecutors to assure that the accused person(s) are allowed the proper procedures and due process of the law granted by the 14th Amendment.
Children Children remain a controversial issue in the law for women and occur frequently in debates today. The birth control movement started in 1873 with the Comstock Law, which outlawed the distribution of birth control information and devices through mail. This included birth control related items imported from outside the United States. The Comstock Law also outlawed possession of information about birth control, as well as possession of actual birth control devices or medications, including those for abortions or contraceptives.
Case Brief Title & Citation: 1. Kent V United States 2. 383 U.S. 541 (1966) The Facts: The police detained and questioned 16-year old Morris A. Kent Jr., in connection with several incidents involving theft by force and rape. After admitting to having some involvement, the juvenile court canceled its legal control, allowing the court to try Kent as an adult.
