Bible Believers Case Summary

For this paper, I have chosen to interview an acquaintance of mine who is a devote Muslim and follower of Islam. For the sake of this assignment I will be referring to him under the pseudonym of Jack. I spoke with Jack about some wide-ranging topics discussing things such as, media, bias, stereotypes, and really in general what being a follower of Islam is like in this divided country right now. In our country, today it’s pretty apparent there is a type of fear of Muslims, so much so that 7 heavy populated Muslim countries are not permitted from entering the United States of America. I never had conversations as personal as this with Jack and I feel as if I gained a lot of insight into the types of things minorities, and especially Muslims

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.

Issues: Whether Westboro Baptists signs and comments during their protest at Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder’s Funeral were matters of public concern and protected under the First

In the District of Columbia v. Wesby case The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on whether a number of partygoers were in the right or if the police officers were in the right. The police were called to respond to a noise complaint at a residence and later questioned if the partygoers had a right to be there at all. The partygoers say they are innocent because they were told they could be in the home. While the police officers say they broke the law by trespassing. To defend the partygoers case they are using the 4th amendment.

This article is about how police in Kentucky arrested two elementary school students and that was ruled as being unconstitutional. The incidents violated the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable seizure. There were two incidents of this happening, the first incident was because an eight-year-old boy was being disruptive during class kicking open doors and kicking at the teacher. The officer confronting the boy was telling him that his mother will be there soon and the boy proceeded to swing his elbow towards the officer. The officer stopped it and hand-cuff him for about fifteen minutes with video evidence of the boy saying “that hurts”. The officer even said to the boy that if he asks nicely he will take the handcuffs off him. The boy was later found to be diagnosed with A.D.H.D and P.T.S.D and the school did not know this. The second incident was from a nine-year-old girl being disruptive and then being moved to a “calm room”. The same officer tried to calm her down but she spit in his face and he handcuffed her the exact same way as the boy. The parents of these students sued the officer and the officer was ruled guilty of violating

Reasoning: The Court further held that the officers' questioning of the defendants about their reasoning for being at the event during their detention did violate the Fourth Amendment. The officers did not have reasonable suspicion to question the four defendants. Moreover, the Court had held repeatedly that mere police questioning did not constitute a

Terry v. Ohio was a pivotal case for the Fourth Amendment and for the citizens of the United States of America. As referenced by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, in nineteen sixty three an off duty detective in Cleveland, Ohio stopped and frisked two African American men and one white man based on a ‘reasonable suspicion that the men were about to commit a crime’ (ACLUOhio, 2014). The ruling of this case has set in motion the gross abuse of stop and frisks in minority communities and among minority races in the twenty-first century; ultimately racial profiling in a post-racial era.

As an American citizen, we are guaranteed many freedoms through the Constitution. The first amendment in the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” (US Const. amend. I). This means that all people have the right to assemble a protest peacefully, and Congress in unable to prevent this practice. However, in recent years this has become controversial because many residents question how much protesters can get away with before a demonstration becomes turbulent. Because of this question, there have been many cases in which law enforcement has become involved in rallies. This essay will explore when law enforcement became involved in rallies, and when they did not.

On October 31st, 1963, an incident took place involving Cleveland Police Department Detective Martin McFadden and community members John W. Terry and Richard Chilton which resulted in the historical 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Terry v. Ohio. The decision ruled that an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when stopped or searched by a police officer, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed or is committing a crime and has reasonable belief that the individual may be armed and dangerous.

Ohio ruling of 1968. This ruling states that a police officer can detain without arrest, and frisk for their safety when there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to happen. “Terry v. Ohio was the first case in which the Supreme Court approved a search and seizure of an individual in a criminal case under the Fourth Amendment based on reasonable suspicion” (Lippman, 2011 p. 96). However the judge was not disputing the stop-and-frisk policy per say, she was disputing the “taking advantage” of the policy and the misuse of police authority. Judge Scheindlin has had experience in dealing with these types of cases. In Floyd v. City of New York in 2008 there was a class –action lawsuit against being stopped unwarranted. Testimony was given by about 12 black or biracial men and one

Overturning a ruling by the Kentucky Supreme Court in Kentucky v. King, No. 09–1272 (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the police had the right to

Fundamentally, under the United States Constitution section 242, the officers violates the federal constitutional rights of Rodney King by wilfully using unreasonable force against him in arresting him (Staten, 1992). Likewise, King’s rights are violated by the sergeant who wilfully permits the three other officers to unlawfully assault him, therefore depriving him of his right to be kept free from harm while in official custody. Similarly, as a Canadian citizen, one violates the legal rights of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 8 of search and seizure whereas everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 2002). Obviously in this case, King is not granted the freedom to be secured when he is being arrested. Therefore, the police officers obstructed justice process and contribute to further injustice done to the victim. Moreover, given the extensive pre-trial publicity surrounding the case and that the defendants’ being law enforcement officials, they have caused a high level of indignation and outrage.

a. As New York Times reporter Erwin Chemerinsky notes, “In recent years, the court has made it very difficult, and often impossible, to hold police officers and the governments that employ them accountable for civil rights violations. This undermines the ability to deter illegal police behavior and leaves victims without compensation.”

Last week, Christian Life Center pastor Nathaniel Haney’s sermon was about an existing “Muslim problem.” One parishioner named Evangelina Solano Rosas recorded the sermon and posted it online, prompting backlash from Facebook users, ABC 10 details.

“The Interfaith Amigos” is a TEDx talk by Rabbi Ted Falcon, Pastor Don Mackenzie, and Imam Jamal Rahman. The talk seeks to address the longstanding polarization of and often violent conflict between their three major world religions. They attribute much of this to a general “stuckness,” which Rahman illustrates through the metaphor of a Mullah and his cheese sandwiches. One major example of this “stuckness,” as addressed later in the talk, is the overwhelming racism stemming from misinformation and stereotypes around past and current events.