Analysis of Landmark Court Cases

There are a number of landmark court cases of special education in the country that have become the basis of how we currently provide services to students with disabilities. Diana v. California State Board of Education (1970) and Larry P. v. Riles (1984) are two of these landmark court cases that highlight nondiscriminatory assessments. Below is the analysis of the two court cases in four major sections: The Legal Cases, Summary, Future Practice, and Comparison and Contrasts.

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

This paper will address the Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S551 (2005); it will specifically address the arrest, trial and the legal issues that arose. It will explain and identify the holdings of the lower courts and it will explain and identify the decision of the U.S Supreme Court.

In the United State we have many systems, like all others, it is separated the use of some irrelevant or untrustworthy evidence. The system that I am referring to and the one that we will be discussing in this paper is the exclusionary rule. It is the introduction of a good evidence, that it is obtained by a bad law enforcement, is most common in the United State than other countries legal system. To put it in other words, the exclusionary rule is controversial. Therefore, many experts say that it sets criminals free on minor points. In this paper, I will speak about the pros and cons of the exclusionary rule, how it is effecting the criminal justice system of the United State. In addition, I will speak and summarize the case of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott from 1998, this will be a great example of the exclusionary rule and the effects about them. Furthermore, I will show how this case was important with the Exclusionary Rule, and my opinion on the matter.

Throughout the history of the Supreme Court, there have been numerous notable court cases. However, none of these would have been possible without Maybury v. Madison. It occurred in 1803, when John Adams decided to appoint several justices at the last minute. Not all of these letters were delivered, and one of the judges, Maybury decided to sue Madison. Madison won, and this court case creates Judicial Review.

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

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.

On May 23, 1957, Dollree Mapp(1923-2014) took Ohio to court. Looking at this historical case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, “cannot be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts as had formerly been the law (Mapp v. Ohio. 1960)”. The Supreme Court completed this by use of selective incorporation as explained by the Court. The Fourth Amendment was violated due to the absence of a search warrant.

The following cases represent examples in various outcomes of contrast and comparison in administrative searches. Comparisons question whether or not warrants were necessary when determining if civil rights were compromised. In some cases, the courts felt that warrantless searches were justified; while other cases represent examples of civil rights violations.

Landmark court cases have a legal and historical significance for the application of the particular laws of liberties and individual rights. The five Supreme Court cases that shape law enforcement profession include the Fernandez v. California, Navarette v. California, United States v. Wurie, Plumhoff v. Rickard, and Riley v. California. As evident, legal cases helped design the law enforcement profession into what it is today.

My research was conducted and compiled to present information on the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio. The Mapp v. Ohio case was brought before the Supreme court in the year 1961 and was and still is considered a landmark supreme court case in dealing with Civil Liberties and criminal Procedure. The case itself deals with the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in criminal proceedings, but I feel the case addressed a more deeply rooted problem. A problem where american ideals of freedom and liberty are pitted against a changing social relationship with law enforcement, which I will discuss

Allen versus the city of Oakland was one of the largest lawsuits filed and won against the Oakland Police Department for police misconduct. Misconduct has always been an issue with law enforcement. Starting in the early years of law enforcement there were policies set to keep officers from committing these actions. In time, the policies have been changed, reconstructed, and updated to increase effectiveness and efficiency. To get a better view on how these policies are implemented, the actions of the police officers in Allen versus the city of Oakland will be examined and the justifications for their actions will be reviewed. Not all actions can be justified though. For those types of actions with no justification, an

In criminal law the most significant body in history is the Supreme Court. It is known as the “highest court in the land”. The landmark cases heard by the court are carefully chosen by the esteemed justices. The choices are usually based on cases that will have significance to more than just the parties involved in the case. They look at cases that will have a wide range effect for the country, and cases that lower courts struggled to come to a conclusion about. The case that was chosen for this essay was Ohio v. Clark. In this report the case will be summarized as well as discussed as to merits of the case and the decisions of the court.

The decision, in this case, was suitable, however, the struggle made supervisors stressed over the obstruction from labor laws. McKinley v. The city of Mayfield directed an examination with respect to the wrong use of police scanners to ease drop on cordless telephones or cell phones. Roughly 30 police officers were met with respect to the occurrence. McKinley gave false explanations to the primary meeting an agent directed and therefore was given a moment meet. The second meeting was in two sections, Garrity, and criminal confirmation gathering. The examiner was gathering data about the false articulations and right data about the abuse of scanner.

The courts become an important source of control in two ways. First, the courts are used to assess the appropriateness of many longstanding police practices and procedures through legal challenges. Second, both individual officers and their governing entities are increasingly subject to civil and criminal liability for unreasonable actions, policies, and practices (Alpert, 2004). By restricting police use of deadly