America V. Robert Durandis, Donald Charles: Case Study

1.Probable cause is a set of facts surrounding a specific circumstances that leads a “reasonable person” to believe an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. Probable cause is required in the instances of an arrest, search and seizure and the issuance of a warrant. To ESTABILISH reasonable cause the officer can use any trustworthy information. For example the office could use his/her experience, informant information, first hand observations or knowledge, victim reports, anonymous tips, or hearsay.

While, reading the case, Elonis v. United States, I was astonished to see that someone would post something so explicit, offensive, and inhumane. Basically, the case of Elonis v. United States is about a man named Anthony Elonis who is an upcoming rapper and used his stage name, Tone Dougie. His Facebook page consisted of him posting disturbing rap lyrics. Even though Elonis was going through a divorce with his former wife, which did not stop him from writing and posting crude lyrics. Eventually, it got to the point where his wife felt that she was being targeted by his lyrics. According to an article on, New York Times, Elonis wrote that he wanted to see a Halloween costume that included his wife’s “head” on a stick. Obviously, she felt threatened and reported the assaults to the police. Anthony Elonis was convicted for posting threats that targeted his wife, his coworkers, police officers, a kindergarten class, and even an FBI agent. Although Elonis argued that his posting are not considered to be a “true threat” and that he is protected under the First Amendment. I believe he wanted to cause fear towards his wife, Tara and therefore, is his lyrics are a true threat. Basically, a true threat is defined as something a person would consider to be “purposely” harmful and cause pain. Elonis mentioned that his post were not offended nor were the threatening anybody. He stated that he did not have the intent of trying to harm anyone, he was just trying

Facts: In 2000, California voters adopted Proposition 22, defining marriage as a relationship only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 and California began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Proponents of Proposition 8, who opposed same-sex marriage, collected signatures and filed petitions to get Proposition 8 on the ballot. In November 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, "which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman" (Santoro & Wirth, 2013). Two same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied, then brought suit under 42 U.S.C.S. ยง 1983, based on the idea that Proposition 8 violated equal protection. The State of California refused to argue in favor of Proposition 8 and the original proponents of Proposition 8 sought to defend the law. In May of 2009, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a California District Court, which held that it violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision. The case then came before the Supreme Court. However, the State of California is not defending Proposition 8; instead, a mix of private parties is defending the law. This has led to questions about standing as well as the constitutional issues in the case.

An example of racial profiling that involves both Stop-and-Frisk and DWB is the incident behind Whren v. United States. The incident behind the case involved two black men, Michael Whren and James Lester Brown, in Washington D.C. who were driving a truck through a high drug area. An unmarked police car with two officers pulled up next to the truck that was stopped at a stop sign for an unreasonable amount of time and then sped away at a high speed. The police officers then pulled them over and saw a clear plastic bag. Under the suspicion that it was drugs, they searched the car and ended up finding a substantial amount of drugs. The decision of Whren v. United States says that if a police officer has a reasonable suspicion, he can stop the car for that reason alone. There is no need for a traffic offense because ‘driving suspiciously’ is enough to warrant a stop. While yes, they did see the plastic bag and that was the caused for the search, they stopped them because they were African American men in a high drug area and drove suspiciously. There is no saying that if they were two white men that they would not have been pulled over as well, however, if they were two black men not in a high drug area and drove suspiciously they would have still been more likely to be pulled over than two white men. This shows the underlying problem is not that the law directly discriminates, it’s that the police who enforce and the society who follows it that have biases and stereotypes that

I choose the Supreme Court case United States v. Causby because initially it reminded me of the movie Burlesque. In the movie, a man named Marcus did not want the view of his penthouse to be ruined by a skyscraper being built right next to the window. So, instead of buying the land property, he bought the air rights. Owning these air rights means that he owned the air above the surface level. This is similar to this Supreme Court case because Lee Causby was suing for the disturbance being caused planes that was happening above his property, and common law doctrine said that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe. Lee Causby “owned a dwelling and a chicken farm near a municipal airport. The safe path of glide to one of the

The questions presented to the Supreme Court in Raich v. Gonzales (2005) are whether the Commerce Clause affords Congress the power to ban the growth, use, and sale of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act and whether it can enforce that act against ill people whose doctors have prescribed medical marijuana as a remedy. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice John Paul Stevens employed Justice Stephen Breyer’s strand of pragmatism to answer those questions. The premise of Breyer’s approach is that the Constitution enshrines values and principles, but it grants judges the flexibility to apply those principles to changing circumstances (Yale 11). Hence, pragmatist judges embrace constitutional

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

Perhaps, according to Bernard Schwartz, the greatest failure of American law during World War II may be illustrated by the case of Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu. As graphically described in 1944 by a member of the bench, his case is one that is unique in our system:

The Supreme Court is the courtroom where all the legal cases dealing with congress or the constitution go to get a final decision. The Court is currently composed of a chief justice, eight associate justices, and nine officers. Their main goal as members of the Supreme Court is to make sure everything and anything abides by the constitution. It has many powers when it comes to law and especially the constitution, but it is not overly powerful due to the other two branches of the government. Checks and balances helps keep their powers level and just as important as the executive and legislative branch powers. The Court has the ability to remove a law or refute anything that violates the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, on average, receives around 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari every term. The Court grants and hears oral arguments for eighty cases. One case specifically was Printz v. United States. This case focused on dealing with background checks when purchasing a firearm. Jay Printz deemed the provisions to the Brady Bill unconstitutional, decided to take it to the District Courts and eventually the case ended up in the Supreme Court, where Stephen P. Halbrook fought and won the case based on a five to four ruling in favor of Printz.

Facts: Antoine Jones (defendant), a nightclub owner in the District of Columbia was suspected for drug trafficking by the FBI and Metropolitan Police Department task force. As a joint task-force investigation, the FBI applied for a warrant that authorized the use of an electronic tacking device on the Jeep Grand Cherokee registered to Jones’s wife. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued the warrant, in which authorized an installation of the device on Jones’s vehicle within in the District of Columbia and and within 10 days of the issuance of the warrant. However, the government did not install the device on the undercarriage of Jones’s vehicle until the eleventh day

In case 2 of 15, the plaintiff, Edward Roberts, alleged discrimination based on color. This allegation falls under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII. “Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin” (Mello, J. A. 2015). The courts will have to decide whether the defendant, the trucking company, discriminated against Mr. Roberts based on his color. As presiding judge in the case, I would rule on Mr. Roberts’ behalf. The facts of the cases state Mr. Roberts came “in person on March 31, 2005” to apply, which clearly states his color was observed as he put in the application. Mr. Roberts experience was sufficient because he listed 22 months of prior experience as a road driver.

In the case of United States v. Salerno, records indicate that the defendant, Anthony ‘Fat Tony’ Salerno and Vincent Cafaro were indicted on 29 counts of racketeering in addition to gambling violations, mail and wire fraud, extortion, gambling, and conspiracy to commit murder, all considered violations of the RICO Act (Racketeering, Influence, and Corrupt Organizations). Upon determination that Salerno was “the boss of the Genovese crime family of La Cosa Nostra crime family and Cafaro was a "captain" in the Genovese family” (United States v. Salerno, n.d.) and providing evidence of illegal activities via court-ordered wiretaps, the government established that no condition or combination of conditions would ensure the safety of any person

I visited Monroe County Court on March 30th, 2016. The court case was called, “Williams vs United States”, and Williams was being sued for possession of an unregistered handgun on September 18th, 2015. The court procedure started at about 2:45 P.M. when Judge Randall entered the courtroom. Upon entering the courtroom everyone present arose. After rising Judge Randall asked everyone in the courtroom to sit down, and the judge briefly overviewed the nature of the case.

In 1934, a farmer named Thomas Lee Causby and his family bought a small farm eight miles west of Greensboro, North Carolina. They raised chickens on their three acre plot and made a living on the proceeds of the meat and eggs. A third of a mile away from Causby’s farm was an airfield. Linley Field, originally a pasture used by barnstormers, had opened in 1927. It was used as a mail stop and the home of the first passenger service in the Triad, until two near-crashes caused it to be ordered closed in 1935. Two years later, it reopened with two new paved, fixed runways —one of which pointed directly at the Causby’s farm. This meant that less than ten percent of the time, depending on the prevailing winds, the small single or double engine private planes using the airport would be taking off or landing right over the Causby’s heads. It could be noisy and distracting, but the planes were few and infrequent enough not to cause a great disturbance to the Causbys or their lives.

The less sophisticated thieves have perfected the art of “dumpster-driving” rummaging through trash. Abusing employer’s authorized access to credit reports or some even playing ‘landlord’ has given them unauthorized access to victim’s reports. Some victims have been scammed fro information by an identity thief posing as a legitimate businessperson or government official. In the most recent news from Concord, NC (Aug. 19, 2004), the police have uncovered a more sophisticated case of ID theft. The newspapers stated, “Authorities think a portable credit card reader, or skimmer, was used to read personal information off a credit card’s magnetic strip. Then those details were applied to the strip on the back of a different cared.”