More handpicked essays just for you.
4th amendment and law enforcement
Tennessee v. Garner specified the conditions under which
Rationale for tennessee v garner
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: 4th amendment and law enforcement
The court decided that killing a fleeing suspect is a “seizure” under the fourth amendment and such a seizure would
1. Facts: “Tennessee vs. Garner” - the decision of the Supreme Court of the USA in 1985 (471 US (1985), which deals with the application of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution . According to this decision, a police officer pursuing a suspect should not endanger life-saving escape, if the fugitive does not pose a threat to the life and health of others and / or the policeman himself. October 3, 1974 around 22:45 the officers police Memphis Lesli Rayt and Elton Haimon were on call on a burglary. Haimon walked around the house, while Wright maintained contact with the police station with the help of a walkie-talkie.
Facts: Police pull over a car with Joseph Pringle and two other people in the car, and Pringle was in the front seat of the car, when law enforcement officials search the car. Police officers discover in the car baggies of cocaine in the back seat of the car and $763 in the compartment up front. None of the three people in the car would confess to whom the drug belonged to and so all of them were arrested. When arriving at the police station Pringle admitted that the cocaine belong to him and then he was charged with intent to sell and possession of cocaine. Pringle then stated that there was no probable cause to arrest him, and the Maryland court system stated there was probable cause and proceed to convict him (Maryland v Pringle 540 U.S.
Recently, state-issued photo ID has been required in order vote since the law passed in the Texas legislature. This law has caused controversy as it brings up the question over the state’s power in the regulation of elections. “While pending review within the judicial system, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively ended all pending litigation. As a result, voters are now required to present an approved form of photo identification in order to vote in all Texas Elections” (votetexas.gov). The U.S. Supreme Court struck down on Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the Shelby County v. Holder case.
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.
The case of Terry v. Ohio tests the limitations of the fourth amendment. On October 31st, 1963, three men were acting suspicious on the streets of Ohio. A police officer noticed three men walking back and forth and peering into a store as if they were planning to rob it. They continued doing so and ended up meeting with another person. At that point, officer McFadden approached to stop and frisk for any weapons or drugs.
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).
Kyra Rubin Professor Jennifer Larson English 105i 5 October 2015 Unit 2, Feeder 1 In the 2013 case of Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court held that a mandatory minimum sentence of life-without-parole is an unconstitutionally disproportionate punishment for a juvenile. Under the Eighth Amendment protections from cruel and unusual punishment, the Court held that mitigating factors must be considered in determining sentencing for juveniles. The issue in Montgomery v. Louisiana is concerned with whether or not this rule can be applied retroactively; doing so would potentially provide relief for the inmates who are currently serving time after being sentenced to live-without-parole as juveniles, and who didn’t have such mitigating factors considered. Issue: Does the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, which held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory sentencing schemes that require children convicted of homicide to be sentenced to life in prison without parole, apply retroactively?
In the case of Moore v. Texas, “the Supreme Court will face the question of whether it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment to use outdated medical standards in assessing intellectual disabilities to determine whether an individual may be executed.” This really stood out to me, to think that he committed the act of a murder in 1980, when he took the life of a grocery store clerk and they are questioning if he should face the consequences that he was given. In my opinion if you chose to take the life of any individual you must pay for your actions, I feel that many people use “intellectual disability” as a way to avoid being put to death. I do agree many people have mental sickness such as “schizophrenia, bipolar disorders etc” but if you
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 Civil Rights movement was a turning point in our history. The fight for equality started long before the 1960’s for African Americans. Tennesseans fought to keep blacks and whites separated. Freedom was not easy to obtain in Tennessee, and many whites opposed the “freedman.” Black Tennesseans fought for their right to vote back in 1867 and won.
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.
The Fourth Amendment the Search and Seizure amendment was first passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 (National Constitution Center) that states the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures (National Constitution Center). For the first one hundred years after this amendment was This amendment of the Constitution has been used by both civilians and governmental officials as proof of why they believe an incident that occurred was fair, or unfair. However, there have been times when deciding the fairness or unfairness has not been crystal clear. For instance, the case of Tennessee v. Garner that was first argued on October 30, 1984, and later decided upon on March
His neighbor appears to be intoxicated and becomes violent when the officer reaches for his handcuffs. He takes a swing at the officer and then attempts his escape. Thirty years prior, the officer would have had the option to draw his weapon and fire or risk a dangerous car chase. Thankfully, he has a Taser gun on his belt. He is able to draw, fire, and apprehend the subject with little effort and no loss of life.
This idea came up in a major Supreme Court case in 1985 called Tennessee v. Garner where the judges questioned the constitutionality of shooting at an unarmed suspect. In this case, a police officer from Memphis came out to a neighborhood at night to investigate a complaint of a possible burglary. Upon arrival at the house in question, the officer heard a noise and saw a person trying to escape over the fence. When the suspect did not stop after a warning from the officer, the policeman shot and killed the suspect. After a long series of trials, the previous statute of Tennessee was overturned and replaced with a new one that included a new phrase.
