Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics and professionalism in law enforcement
Police professionalism
Police professionalism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics and professionalism in law enforcement
Police professionalism
Police professionalism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethics and professionalism in law enforcement
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.
On October 3, 1974, at around 10:45 pm, Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright of the Memphis Police Department were responding to a “prowler on the inside” call. They made the scene and observed a woman in the house next to the intended home of the call. She was standing on her front porch pointing at the house. She advised that she had heard glass breaking and someone was breaking into the house next door. As Wright showed both officers on the scene on his radio to dispatch, Hymon went to the rear of the house.
Williamson v. City of Houston, 148 F. 3d 462, Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit (1998) Facts: Linda Williamson worked as a police officer in a specialized division in the Houston Police Department. Williamson alleged a coworker, Doug McLeod, engaged in harassing behavior that created a hostile work environment for eighteen months. McLeod continued the harassing behavior after she told him it was offensive and to stop. Williamson reported McLeod’s harassment to their supervisor, Sergeant Bozeman.
Gideon V. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963) is the case I have chose to brief. According to US courts website “Clarence Earl Gideon was an unlikely hero. He was a man with an eighth-grade education who ran away from home when he was in middle school. He spent much of his early adult life as a drifter, spending time in and out of prisons for nonviolent crimes. ”The Petitioner within the case was Clarence Earl Gideon.
Brady v. United States 397 U.S. 742 (1970) Intro: The Petitioner plead guilty to kidnapping after his co-defendant decided to confess and testify against him. Whether Brady’s (the petitioner) plea was made voluntarily was the issue. Relevant Law: “Just because a defendant discovers that the State would have had a weaker case or that they were not going to impose the maximum punishment does not mean that the defendant is allowed by law to disown his statements made in open court.” Facts: The Petitioner, in 1959, was charged with kidnapping.
State of Georgia V. Marcus Dwayne Dixon (2003) Marcus Dixon was a highly recruited high school football player. His life suddenly took a tragic turn when he was falsely convicted of raping a 15 year old girl. The elements around his false conviction could have been avoided with some reform to the criminal justice courts system. Dixon initially had many charges against him but were narrowed down to statutory rape and aggravated child molestation. There was much racial disparity surrounding the jury on Dixon’s case, in that the county that Dixon committed his “crime” was a predominantly white population.
In the case of Tennessee vs Garner 471 US 1 1985 Edward Garner a 15 year old young man broke into a house, he was found hiding outside in the backyard by responding Officer Elton Hymen. Gardner made a fatal decision to flee even after being ordered by the police to stop, Garner tried to climb a six foot fence at that point officer Hymen shot and killed Garner. In this case the U.S. Supreme Court declared the “Fleeing Felon Doctrine” unconstitutional in that it violated the Fourth Amendment in that it was an unreasonable seizure. In Justice White delivery of the Courts opinion they “conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant
Case Name: Andrea v Clarence To determine if the arrest of Clarence was lawful, one must first determine if the police officers were trespassing at the time of the arrest. Did the police officers trespass on another ’s land in order to arrest Clarence? The police officers would be found to have trespassed if it was established that; • The action was direct and intentional • The police officers entered and/or remained on another’s land • The police officers were present on the land without consent or lawful justification
In 1967 two men robbed a bank in Eustace, Texas. One man, with two pieces of tape on his face, went into the bank, pointed a gun at the cashier and demanded the money. His partner waited outside in a stolen getaway car. Wade and his partner were indicted for the robbery and counsel was appointed. About two weeks later, a FBI agent caused the two men to be part of a lineup consisting of five or six other men at which the bank employees were asked to make an identification, and at which the two men were in fact identified.
Fisher v. Texas “Universities all over the country are breathing a sigh of relief,” Sherrilyn Ifill ("Fisher v. University of Texas”). The final decision of the court case Fisher v. Texas, ruled against student Abigail Fisher; rejecting her opinion that colleges taking in consideration of race as a factor of acceptances is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment ("Fisher v University of Texas Syllabus”). This means that, when deciding among a pool of qualified applicants, a university can consider an applicant’s race, along with his or her test scores, grades, such things as extracurricular activities, athletic or musical ability, and special achievements outside school. Miss Fisher filed a suit after being outraged that she was declined by the color of her skin ("Fisher v. University of Texas”).
State v. Hendrix A Supreme Court case where the defendant Homer O. Hendrix was convicted and found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Hendrix was sentenced to a term of 15 years in prison. The events leading up to the Supreme Court’s ruling takes place take place 3 years earlier. Labor Day, September 1, 1975, Hendrix and another member of the community Norman D. Cherry got into a confrontation on Hendrix’s property.
United States v. Virginia: Equal Protection Nathan O’Hara Liberty High School 4A United States v. Virginia is an equal rights case that argued whether it was constitutional for Virginia Military Institute (VMI) to deny women the opportunity to attend the all male Institute purely because of their genders (U.S. v. Virginia, 1996). Virginia was accused of violating the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and trying to make an all female institution as a substitute for not accepting women (U.S. v. Virginia, 1996). In response Virginia created the Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership (VWIL) as a female alternative located at the already all female Mary Baldwin College (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015b).
We see multiple successes of voting equality attempted through amendments, however, the Supreme Court’s decision on Shelby County v. Holder has pushed back years and years of effort for voting rights. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling was in Shelby County’s favor, stating that the Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional along with Section 5. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, who wrote the majority’s opinion, said that the power to regulate election was reserved to the states, not the federal government. As a result to the court’s decision, the federal government can no longer determine which voting law discriminates and can be passed. After the case, many states had freely passed new voting laws; the most common voting law states passed
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.
Injustice The Scottsboro Case shed light on the racial practices expressed in law that made a great impact on the legal system today. The actual victims of the Case did not receive a fair trial due to the color of their skin. The ones who played the victims planned the crime, and their stories made no sense. But like many of the trials during the time it wasn’t based on the actual evidence that was found,or even the defendants ' stories.