According To Mean (2015) Section 1983

The Fourteenth Amendment states "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.'" (Davidson, J., & Stoff, M. (2007). America, history of our nation: Independence through 1914 (California ed., p. 118) Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall). This Amendment is stating that all people have the right to life, liberty, and property under the protection of the states. This case relates to the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, because they questioning if it is within Nancy Cruzan's rights to keep on living even if she cannot say what she does or

The Scottsboro Trials led to two prominent U.S. Supreme Court cases—Powell v. Alabama and Norris v. Alabama. Surprised and Dismayed by the outcome of the first set of trials, the NAACP determined that the rights of the Scottsboro boys had been treaded upon and deserved a need for a re-trial to shed light on the importance of a fair trial. The re trial resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court case Powell v. Alabama. The defense argued that the nine men were denied protection of their fundamental right to having effective legal counsel.The right to having effective council is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment. The right to due process recognized by the 14th Amendment was also neglected during the Scottsboro Trials . The Court affirmed the concerns of the NAACP and International Labor Defense and reversed the convictions of the Scottsboro boys. The Court’s decision in Powell v. Alabama ultimately set forth the beginnings of “incorporation” of the Due Process Clause and the rights to a fair trial to those who face a sentence of death by applying them to State Constitutions under the authority of the

The originally Bill of Rights protected the rights of citizens from infringement by the federal government, but made no mention of the states. The Fourteen Amendment, adopted shortly after the Civil War, protected citizenship and individual rights from infringement by state governments. Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, the United States Supreme Court began to apply the most important rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights against the states. This process began in the early 1900s and is known as the doctrine of selective incorporation. Duncan versus Louisiana was the landmark case in which the court incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial against the states.

which stated that when the accused is being tried in a state court, he or she does not have the protection of the exclusionary rule, which protects against illegal search

In 1949, Wolf v. the People of the state of Colorado questions whether or not the states can deny the due process law that is required under the Fourth Amendment in a state offense. (FindLaw, 2014) Dr. Wolf was in trial for conspiracy for conducting an abortion on Mildred Cairo. The prosecutors obtained Dr. Wolf’s appointment book and was used as evidence against him. (HENRIKSEN, 20140 Mr. Wolf’s referred to a previous 1914 case, Weeks v. United States, and claimed that his appointment book had been seized in violation the Fourth Amendment. In Weeks v. US it was ruled that any evidence from an illegal search would not be admitted in a federal court. Justice Frankfurter argued that although he agreed that the exclusionary rule was a great way to prevent illegal search and seizures, however, it was not the only way and he denied to imposed this act among the

Federal-State Conflict Individual states do not need to follow all interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court in the area of criminal procedure. The states must only abide by what the Supreme Court sets as minimum thresholds for constitutional guarantees. The states are not precluded from developing workable rules governing arrest, searches and seizures to meet “the practical demands of effective criminal investigation and law enforcement.”

Thirty-five years later after Weeks’ case, the Supreme Court in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) held that the 4th Amendment protection applies to searches by state officials and federal agents. However, the exclusionary rule generated in Weeks’ case did not apply to the states. The appellant, Julius A. Wolf, was convicted of treachery to commit abortions in Colorado and police officers had attained evidence used against him without a warrant or consent. State judges were not required to disregard evidence obtained in desecration of the 4th Amendment in states’ criminal prosecutions. In this case, the Supreme Court applied the 4th Amendment to the states through the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. Wolf’s verdict was upheld (Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 1949). The Supreme Court left the states to enforce the 4th Amendment protection. It resulted in the abused power and the court had to intervene (Holten &Lamar, 1991).

United States was decided by the Supreme Court in 1945. The case involved police brutality were the victim was killed. The federal government prosecuted the police officers after the State of Georgia refused to do so. M. Claude Screws was Sheriff of Baker County, Georgia. Screws knew the victim well, they had been in confrontation over a pistol seized from the victim Robert Hall. On January 29, 1943 Screws had two officers arrest Hall on charges of stealing a tire. The three men drove Hall to the town square and beat him with their fists and a two pound blackjack in front of the courthouse. They did it in plain sight, as residents watched from their homes. The State of Georgia failed to bring charges on the three men, Screws and the other two officers even though repeated suits by the federal government were placed, “a jury in Albany, Georgia, convicted all three defendants of violating Section 242, rejecting the officers’ claim that the beating had been justified in self-defense.”(Watford, 2014) Section 242 was too vague and could not be used to trial because the defendants argued they were not sure which rights it protected. There was a debate between the Supreme Court Justices if the vagueness of Section 242 would lead to a mistrial. The Court’s formation of Section 242 had introduced a “radical revolution” in the balance of power between the National Government and the States. Justice Frankfurter argued that, “because the defendants violated Georgia law by committing murder, this was a purely local crime-enforcement matter that had always been left to the domain of the States”(Watford, 2014) The federal government were now going to be able to make all lawless acts by any police officer a federal crime and Section 242 had survived. The survival of Section 242 meant that the federal government would have a part in fighting the well-known problem of police brutality to African Americans and other minorities, mainly in the South. It was

Printz v. United States 521 U.S. 898 (1997) Facts Prior to this case there were two forms of gun control acts the first was that of 1968 which forbids gun sells to sell guns to people that have a felony charge that are mentally unstable and other things this was amended with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which included the need to have a background check. While working to make a system that could make the check fast it had to be done by state law enforcement. People however started to claim that this act was unconstitutional and it violated their rights given to them under the Constitution. The Petitioners filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act’s interim provisions and in each case the District

Paper #1 Essay Question #2 Imagine living in a world where everyone was considered equal. Imagine living in a world where people were considerate of others. Imagine living in a world where everyone had the same rights and privileges. The Framers took a step at achieving this world with the passage

a. standing. b. ripeness. c. case or controversy. d. none of the above (all must be present). B 2. A case challenging a statute as violating a person's rights under the U. S. Constitution.

In the Court’s highly fragmented decision, the justices attempted to define a proper balance of and boundary between federal and state authority: by arguing that state action constituted only those acts sanctioned by the state’s laws and by dismissing Section 20 for vagueness, the major block of dissenters suggested that the risk posed to state autonomy by federal intervention was too great; by recognizing the defendants’ actions as those perpetrated “under color of law” and by creating a “willful” test for acts under Section 20, the majority Opinion affirmed the federal government’s interest in protecting the rights of citizens from abuse by state authority, but provided it with a tenuous means for defending those liberties.

Plessy v Ferguson, 1896 Introduction In 1890, the Separate Car Act was enacted in the state of Louisiana requiring whites and non-white Americans to travel in separate railway cars. As a result, a passenger, Homer Adolph Plessy took a seat in a “whites only” car in one of the Louisiana trains and

Procedure: D was arrested on an outstanding bench warrant, brought a 1983 class statute. D states that invasive searches were conducted before he entered the jail which violated his 4th A rights. TC granted summary judgment, Appeals reversed, US SC held that strip searches were not reas.

It was not until after the Civil War that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments were enacted and began protecting individuals against the states. The Fourteenth Amendment has been the principal means by which this protection has been accomplished. It reads, in part, “No State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The Supreme Court had interpreted this guarantee of liberty to embrace the fundamental liberties in the Bill of Rights, meaning that the state governments must observe and protect them to the same extent as the federal government this is also known called incorporation. The amendments in the Bill of Rights are said to be incorporated against the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There has been an ongoing debate on the Supreme Court about the extent of incorporation, and whether the entire Bill of Rights, or only some of it’s guarantees, should be incorporated against the states.