1. Yes, I do agree with the Court’s holding in Randolph. Although, before I explain my reason why I would like to state that this case is confusing. This is one of those cases where you really have to debate whether the police was in the right or the wrong. I do believe that the police officer were acting in good-faith within this case. Originally Mrs. Randolph did give my permission for the police to search the home. She even led the officers to the area of the house where the evidence was. Then she later withdrew her consent when the police went to call in for a search warrant. However, the court had to make a difficult to decision because Mr. Randolph never did give consent to the search. If they are both the owners of the home then the police would need permission from both of them. Especially, since Mr. Randolph was the main person living there. Mrs. Randolph stated that she hasn’t even been staying there and she just returned. If anything I think Mrs. Randolph she have let them search the area of the house where all of her belongs were. She guided the police to a bathroom she identified as Mr. Randolph’s, which he did not give them consent to search nor was …show more content…
No, I do not believe the Court’s holding in the Randolph case means that victims or potential victims of violence will be less likely to receive police assistance in preventing or stopping such violence. If anything the case is an example of what not to do for future officers in law enforcement. This will also be a reminder to follow all of the correct procedures and not to just react so fast. If they would have followed the proper procedures then the officers would have had a justified search. In the future when police officers go to a home for a domestic violence situation they will now know to either have both husband and wife give consent to search the residence or have a warrant. If they don’t have neither one of those then they minds well leave after they settle the domestic violence
The issue that this case raises, is whether or not the officers had the right to search the car of a person who they just arrested, while the person is handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car?
FACTS: Respondent, Davis, a licensed LPN for over ten years who also lives with hearing loss applied for admissions to Southeastern Community College. The Petitioner, requested Davis see an audiologist before accepting her to the RN program. The audiologist concluded that Davis required lip-read in order to fully understand audible communication. The school subsequently denied Davis entry, assuming her hearing loss would affect her ability to effective care for patients safely.
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
Also another fact one of the justices, Justice O’Connor disagreed with the outcome of the case. She said it was called a, “Cursory Inspection” she went on saying the officers could do the search based on reasonable suspicion that the object was evidence of a criminal activity.
Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
The case Worcester v. Georgia (1832) was a basis for the discussion of the issue of states' rights versus the federal government as played out in the administration of President Andrew Jackson and its battle with the Supreme Court. In addition to the constitutional issues involved, the momentum of the westward movement and popular support for Indian resettlement pitted white man against Indian. All of these factors came together in the Worcester case, which alarmed the independence of the Cherokee Nation, but which was not enforced. This examines the legal issues and tragic consequences of Indian resettlement.
The Plessy v Ferguson case would be overturned ruling the “separate but equal” law to be unconstitutional. Melba Beals was in school that day and was sent home early with the warning to hurry and stay in groups. Even though, it had been decades since the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment no much had changed. Melba’s teacher knew that this ruling would cause rage in the citizens of Little Rock and she was right. Beals describes her attempted rape on her walk home that day. The even goes unreported for fear that the policemen would do something even
The logic used by the Court in order to justify their conclusion is fraught with weak reasoning and dangerous interpretations of the Constitution. It violates the precedent set in Miranda and seems tainted with a desire to justify consent searches at any cost. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte is a decidedly pro-order case because it qualifies another excuse police can raise to search a citizen, but it is also dangerous because it shows that the Court is not the unbiased referee between liberty and democracy that it should be.
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults who were acting in privacy.
“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 to be seized.”
Numerous court cases have been held regarding the matters of not only police searching a car but searching your person, the bus or train a person is on and even that persons personal belongings such as a purse, cigarette cases or wallet without a warrant. A warrant is an absolute must to enter into your car home or property. These types of Police Officers Often Misuse and Overuse their powers when it comes to Conducting Searches on Persons or Property cases very often prove that officers may take their power to far and often on purposes (Search Warrants Explained 1...
However, if the officer is in immediate threat, he has the right to use deadly force to protect themselves from being the victim. “The Court held that the use of deadly force is subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement, and that the Tennessee statute was unconstitutional in so far as it authorized the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances” (Gross,2016). Nonetheless, it also depends on the seriousness of the crime as to how excessive the force may be to control the civilian actively resisting apprehension. Conversely, “what Graham did was to set the tone for how officers should be trained to react in a given situation” (Doerner,2016). Therefore, there are variables set in place to control and monitor the law enforcement standards and training aspects
The Boston Police Department has started enforcing new laws that require an officer to make an arrest when responding to cases of domestic violence. This is a strict new law that is being enforced. Previously, it was not necessary to make an arrest for such an incident. The officer had to make sure that the parties were safe and could judge on what action to carry out next. Now, it is a requirement by law to make an arrest if they respond to any case of domestic violence. It is important to study whether enactment of this new law has led to a change in behavior of people in intimate relationships regarding domestic violence.