Facts:A detective dressed in plain clothes and carried a concealed weapon approached the D from behind while another officer waited near the area. The police officer identified himself and asked if D would like to talk which he agreed to. The officer asked D which state he lived in. D didn’t specify a precise location. The officer asked whether D was carrying drugs in his travel bag which D denied to. When he denied, the other officer appeared about five feet away from D. The search failed to show signs of illegal evidence. THe police officer then asked if he was carrying on his person which he denied to. The officer asked if he can conduct a body search, D complied. The officer started from his ankles, up his leg, and passed over the crotch area. the officer felt small rock-like objects and placed D under arrest. at the station, officer unzipped Ds pants and found a plastic bag of cocaine like substances. D was …show more content…
Crt has to examine the TOC. Both schneckloth and Rodney had relevant factors such as the Ds age, low IQ, or education, and the lack of knowledge of his constitutional rights. Schneckloth used cruel and unusual interrogation methods such as being deprived of food or sleep. D believed there were more officers than there actually were, he was yound and relatively uneducated. He had other unpleasant encounters with the police, he refused to be searched but they searched anyway. The officer in Rodney states that the police conduct did not resemble any police actions that might invalidate consent. The officer then said that his weapon was concealed, he spoke in a conversational tone, and that there was no other officer within five feet of the D. The court weighed the officer’s evidence more heavily than Ds. Even though the Ds testimony was taken into account, the court didn’t have a clear error as to whether the consent was voluntary. D argues that he consented to the body search but not the crotch
The Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination Clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware to his rights and the suspect had then waived them
At the time of trial, Mr. Wardlow tried to suppress the handgun as evidence due to the fact that he believed the gun had been seized under an unlawful stop and frisk that violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring a showing of probable cause in order to obtain a warrant before conducting such searches. “In a trial motion to suppress the gun, Wardlow claimed that in order to stop an individual, short of actually arresting the person, police first had to point to ‘specific reasonable inferences’ why the stop was necessary.”(Oyez, 2000) Recognizing that an investigati...
Abington v. Schempp was an important case regarding the establishment of religion in American schools. Until the late twentieth century, most children were sent to schools which had some sort of religious instruction in their day. The schools taught the morals, values, and beliefs of Christianity in addition to their everyday curriculum. However, as some people began to drift away from Christianity, parents believed this was not fair to the kids and justifiable by the government. They thought public schools should not be affiliated with religion to ensure the freedom of all of the families who send students there. Such is the situation with the 1963 Supreme Court case Abington v. Schempp.
In 1917, a man by the name of Charles T. Schenck was arrested for violating the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act makes it illegal to, during wartime, “willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies [or] willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or of the United States.” Schenck was the General Secretary of the United States Socialist Party. The party opposed the military draft and distributed flyers urging drafted men to petition against their military duty. Schenck was sentenced to serve 10 years in prison.
Do you know that notifying your fellow Americans of their constitutional rights was a Federal crime? Well it was during World War One (WWI). In the case Schenck v. the United States, schenck tried to remind his fellow Americans of their constitutional rights and also let them know that the draft was being used as a form of militarized slavery. This case contained men who his right was taken away after he tried to get the military draftees to fight against the draft. However Congress took his right of speech away when it was arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. This was the time the WWI one had broken out, the government need men to fight. They were short staffed for that to work and they need man to fight this war so the military started selecting citizen randomly to draft. Schenck fought against this draft saying this in a way it was like slavery.
The Court sets up their argument by listing two competing concerns which must be accommodated in defining a voluntary consent. They are the legitimate need for such searches and the requirement of assuring the absence of coercion. The Court digresses from the case at hand with the first concern. The facts of Schneckloth v. Bustamonte indicate that the suspects were stopped for the violation of having lights burned out on their automobile. Given these circumstances there is no legitimate need to search for further evidence. All the proof needed to give a ticket for...
When officer Faultless seized the phones of Rahten and Ruhmoan both were secured then secured by officer faultless. Officer faultless unable to unlock the phones noticing Ruhmoan’s phone required his thumb print to open and forcefully used his thumb to unlock his phone. Once unlocked the officer noticed information from a text about a gun being in their car. This lead to the officer searching the car and discovering a gun. The gun was located in the passenger’s driver’s seat well out of the view of both
Prior to free agency was implemented, individual players were controlled by teams within the MLB to a much greater extent than the current situation. Players’ contracts included reserve clauses, which essentially bound players to a team. Essentially, players could only move teams if they were traded or released. In 1969, Curt Flood who was an outfielder for the St. Louis Cardinals of the MLB at the time, became known as the first professional athlete to challenge the reverse clause. Flood believed the reverse clause went against antitrust laws and his 13th Amendment rights. Once he realized he was being traded to the Philadelphia Phillies, Flood communicated to Bowie Kuhn, the baseball commissioner that he should be able to consider contracts offered by other teams prior to deciding. However, Kuhn rejected his petition, which triggered Flood to sue the MLB for violating antitrust laws.
A case concerning congressional delegation power and the Commerce Clause. In 1933, congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act, which required the creation of codes of fair competition for businesses including trade practices, wages, and hours. The codes were to be drafted by trade association and other industry groups and sent to the president for approval. If no recommendations were sent to the president, he was to draft the codes. However, the NIRA did not set standards for the president to use in drafting or approving the codes and it regulated interstate commerce. A.L.A Schechter Poultry Corporation, a brother-owned New York poultry slaughterhouse in New York was found by the government to be in violation of the Poultry Code. Of all the violations the most egregious violation was selling poultry “unsanitary for human consumption.” A.L.A Schechter and the owners were indicted on sixty counts of violations, nineteen of which they were convicted of and sentenced to short jail terms. They unsuccessfully appealed to the court of the appeals and then appealed to the Supreme Court. Schechter argued that the NIRA was unconstitutional due to its attempts to override the prohibition of illegal
The example case I chose for breach of confidentiality is Berger v. Sonneland. On July, 1 1993 Mrs. Suzan Berger went to see her doctor, Dr. John Sonneland for a consultation. She said she was having some health problems. She complained of stomach pain, chronic diarrhea, dumping syndrome, throwing up and an over 40 pound weight loss. She stated that her symptoms began at the age of 22 and now at the age of 27 she had endured multiple surgeries. Mrs. Berger told Dr. Sonneland that she was taking a few different drugs, including Tylox, a narcotic used to control pain. Mrs. Berger was consulting with Dr. Sonneland for a new prescription of a narcotic pain medication. Mrs. Berger stated she gave Dr. Sonneland a written release to contact her previous doctor, Dr. Federic E. Eckhauser, at the University of Michigan Hospital in Ann Arbor to get her medical history, but did not have Dr. Hoheim, her former husband, and a past doctor she had seen. She also did not give Dr. Sonneland permission to contact him. She
In the case Florida Vs. Royer two narcotic officers approached Royer for a quick discussion, letting Royer know that they are officers. Royer was not told if he was going to be arrested or aware that he would be searched. The two detectives walked with Royer into a larger storage room and began searching he’s property without having sufficient facts to lead the officers into a search and seize operation. The two detectives did not fit in any of the reasoning for probable cause, for starters First hand knowledge requires facts such as finger printing, DNA, evidence in which indicates the person is committing a criminal act. The detectives were not told by a reliable source in which Royer was in fact carrying marijuana. Making an arrest without
b) My client should be entitled to punitive damages because Ms. Westerfeld mentioned that if she was given an opportunity she would “kill all those disgusting bugs.” Therefore, this establishes that she had malice towards my clients’ pets and once his pets escaped she willfully killed them. Consequently, my client based on the definition of punitive damages, should deserve damages.
Ohio. The facts of the Terry case are as follows. “Terry and two other men were observed by a . . . policeman in what the officer believed to be ‘casing a job, a stick-up.’ The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail” (Oyez). Terry lost the case. The court said that “the officer acted on more than a ‘hunch’ and that ‘a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior’”
The Tinker v. Des Moines case was a very important case in history. It changed a big part of school district rules. The Tinker’s were a family with two children who attended Des Moines Independent Community School District in the sixties. The Tinker’s had two kids, John F. Tinker and Mary Beth Tinker. One day the Tinker kids and Christopher Eckhardt, another Des Moines student, wore black armbands in a silent protest against the government’s policies in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Both Tinker children and Christopher Eckhardt were suspended for their protest. When the Tinker and Eckhardt tried to fight the suspensions the District Court said it was within the school’s power to suspend the children but the parents knew that wasn’t right. So, the Tinkers and Eckhardts moved their case to the Supreme Court.
Glassroth v. Moore, Maddox v. Moore United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2003 335 F.3d 1282 Facts Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy S. Moore placed a 5280-pound ton granite monument displaying the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building. Procedure A group of lawyers consisting of Stephen R. Glassroth, Melinda Maddox and Beverly Howard filed two separate civil suits (Glassroth v. Moore and Maddox v. Moore) in Federal Court against Justice Moore in his official capacity as Chief Justice and in his official capacity as Administrative Head of the Alabama Judicial System, respectively, to have the monument removed. The United States District Court For The Middle District Of Alabama, Northern Division ordered the monument removed because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The injunction was stayed pending appeal. Issue: Did Chief Justice Moore’s placement of a 5280-pound monument displaying the Ten Commandments in the center of the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?