Ambler Realty Co. Case

court deemed it reasonable because it was based on fear of disturbance, however in this system

It dismissed the claims against the defendants as being the mayor and Officer Hymon and the Police Department as being the director for lack of evidence. Hymon's actions were then concluded to being constitutional by being under the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted accordingly to the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals then reversed and remanded. It reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only if actions are reasonable. In this case the actions were found not to be reasonable. Officers cannot use deadly force unless they have probable cause that the suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or has committed a felony.

They Supreme Court found that alternative 1 and 2 were unacceptable. Alternative 1 did not apply at all to street encounters and that people on the street are then subject to what and who ever any officer felt like. Alternative 2 was not in the best interest of the officer and if the officer could not take any action until they had probable cause their crime control would suffer and they may never see the suspects again.

“Racial tension became paramount as city officials promoted and perpetuated racial division by supporting segregation and discrimination in housing, employment, and social services” (Massey & Denton 39). Various types of residential controls contributed to the problem of residential segregation. One such tool for segregation was the establishment of zoning. Zoning was introduced in New York City in 1916 and encouraged by the U.S. Department of Commerce through the publication of the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act in 1922. Zoning proponents argued:

The case of Mapp vs. Ohio is one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the last century. Until this decision, the rights against illegal search and

Leaving states to find ways to protect their citizen’s 4th amendment as they try to control criminal activities in their jurisdictions proved to be a failure. Hence, in Mapp v. Ohio case in 1961, the Court applied the

In Warren v. Philadelphia, the court stated that under its police powers, a state or its municipalities may enact statutes and ordinances for the welfare and health of its citizens provided the ordinance is not unreasonable or arbitrary. In that case, the petitioners argued that police powers rest with the state and that the police power that the city was attempting to exert had not been properly delegated to the city. In deciding the case, the court looked to the Home Rule Act of 1949, which stated that "The charter of any city adopted or amended in accordance with this act may provide … for the exercise of any and all powers relating to its municipal functions, not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or of this Commonwealth,

The Supreme Court is right when agrees with the lower court in regards to the quasi-judicial nature of the rezoning action. The zoning board has different roles when is involved in the zoning board and the comprehensive plan process. Some of them include enacting zoning ordinances and law

This assignment is meant to explore the landmark Supreme Court decision Mapp v. Ohio. It is the purpose of the essay to examine the facts of the controversy, the arguments offered by the petitioner, and discuss as well the Supreme Court's ruling and its possible impact on precedent. The analysis will conclude with my commentary and opinion in regard to the Mapp decision.

In the Mapp vs Ohio state court case, the issue disputed was when the appellant Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing “obscene” materials after an illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. During the year of 1961, Ohio police were looking for a criminal accused of a bombing and had been told that he was hiding in Dollree Mapp 's house. Police acted quickly and came to her house but when she didn 't answer the door, police officers forced themselves inside. Dollree demanded to see the police 's search warrant once having spoken to her attorney but police didn’t have one so they held a piece of paper to disguise that it was a warrant when it really wasn’t. Dollree grabbed the paper and when trying to read it, she was then handcuffed on the ground and police continued to search her house (Landmark cases). During the search, officers found pornography and other materials that were against Ohio State law in her basement. As a result, Dollree was arrested, found guilty, and sentenced to 1 to 7 years in the Ohio Women 's Reformatory. Dollree felt that justice was unfair so she consulted with her attorney. “She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression” (Oyez). Dollree’s lawyers argued to the Supreme Court of Ohio that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal (warrantless) search and how it was illegally obtained. “In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio

There are times when areas of government are operating improperly and the judiciary must step in to be able to return it to order. These instances are often met with controversy as people are dismayed by the branch overstepping its traditional boundaries. Despite this discomfort, it is always better that constitutionality and order be reinstated than people gain comfort in their unlawful actions and decisions. Examples of these instances of judges stepping forward to get these areas back on the correct path include the Boston busing situation and the reforms in the Oakland Police Department.

Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in Staten Island, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Walter Scott in North Charleston and, most recently, Freddie Gray in Baltimore have dominated the headlines this entire school year. These men and their stories provide the basis for claims of racially discriminatory treatment of African Americans at the hands of the police. It is true that each of the stories surrounding these men is different, but the one unifying theme is that police around the country are interpreting our Constitutional rights in a way that is insufficient to protect African Americans and the population in general. This paper will explore one Constitutional right— the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures--and examine how one Supreme Court decision that narrowed the scope of the 4th Amendment and unintentionally created a mechanism by which the rights of citizens could be unfairly impeded by police.

Question 5: Based on the ruling of the Supreme Court in City of Chicago v. Morales, what protections of the individual do you think must be included in an ordinance proscribing loitering?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance, which requires a permit for parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest (53).

This is where NIMBY is introduced. NIMBY, which stands for “not in my backyard” is used to 1. “Express opposition by local citizens to the locating in their neighborhood of a civic project.” Some examples of these “civic projects” are: a jail, garbage dump, drug rehabilitation center, or anything that the community considers unsightly, dangerous and likely to lead to property values decreasing. From this is how they derived the compensation and eminent domain laws.