Booker V. Union Carbide Case

Terry v. Ohio is an important case in law enforcement. What did the Court say in this case, and why is it important?

In 1974, the Southeastern promotions, Ltd. V. Conrad case came to the Supreme Court. This came to the court because they believed it violated the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press, petition and assembly. In Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. V. Conrad it was argued that Southeastern Promotions was stripped of their freedom of speech because they were denied the use of the Tivoli Theater in Chattanooga, Tennessee to put on the rock musical Hair. The Supreme Court had to uphold the First Amendment while still allowing the theater to keep their reputation of being a family establishment.

For all responses to each assignment, provide the rationale for your answers and any assumptions that you are making.

Facts: In 1952 the United States was in a conflict in Korea, and the demand for steel

Common Wealth of Pennsylvania v. Taylor Edsel is a controversial case involving arson. Taylor Edsel is being accused of intentionally setting fire to Nash Flash Electromotive due to her suspicious presence in the scene, her relation with the company, and her prominent record as an arsonist. The burning of the facility caused a commotion because the head of the company was a successful story of redemption, and a man a few steps away from revolutionizing the car industry with the Nash Flash, an electric car. Salve DeSoto is an engineer that interacted with Taylor Edsel in the workplace, thus, based on the outcomes of their interaction decided to testify against her. DeSoto is an electrical engineer who graduated from the University of Stanford

The case of Terry v. Ohio took place in 1968. This case involved a Detective who had witnessed three suspicious males patrol a street and stare into a specific window multiple times. With reasonable suspicion and probable cause, Detective McFadden assumed one of them could be armed. He then took one of the males and patted him down to find that he had a pistol on him. He patted the victim down for reasons of protecting himself and others in the community. The Fourth Amendment does include, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Israel, LaFave). The people who are being frisked are for reasons that the officer wants to protect himself and others, not just for no reason. People do have a right to their personal, private property and the stop and frisk, or sometimes know as a terry stop, is approved if the officer has reasons to believe the person could be carrying a weapon or a threat to society. The officer had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to search the male and was able to legally with the Fourth Amendment. The stop and frisk action has been around for almost 50 years. Is it time to put a stop to it because people think it is unconstitutional, or to change the way we view

In the case Terry v. Ohio, the defendant John Terry argued that his Fourth Amendment right was violated when a police officer conducted a search on him, and found a concealed weapon. According to the officer, he had been monitoring Terry’s actions prior to the stop in fear of his safety, thus, had enough reasonable suspicion to stop and search the defendant. The Supreme Court decided to rule in favor of the state determining that the officer may stop and frisk any suspicious person when he feels that his safety or those of others are in danger. A Terry Stop is when the police are allowed to stop, question and frisk someone they believe is behaving suspiciously (Larson, 2000). I am going to argue how police officers benefit from the Terry Stops even though on many occasions they take advantage of their power and act unethical. Essentially, it is acceptable for police officers to stop and frisk any suspicious person because it enhances the community. Furthermore, from the law enforcement perspective, any officer of the law should have a mandatory right to stop and search for weapons in order to protect themselves at all times. It is obvious that society feels that they cannot trust law enforcement because minorities are more likely to be stopped and frisk. Needless to say, it can be argued that we are one step closer to chaos. I would consider that the Supreme Court clarify and specify a little more on the stop and frisk law because ambiguity. In my opinion, anytime an

RULE OF LAW: In every other state or jurisdiction, a corporation is considered a foreign

The United States Supreme Court consists of eight associate justices and one chief justice who are petitioned more than 5,000 times a year to hear various cases (Before the Court in Miller V. Alabama, 2012). At its discretion, the Supreme Court selects which cases they choose to review. Some of the selected cases began in the state court system and others began in the federal court system. On June 25, 2012 the justices of the Supreme Court weighed in on the constitutionality of life without parole for juvenile offenders. The case was Miller v. Alabama and actually included another case, Jackson v Hobbs, as well (2012). Both were criminal cases involving 14 year old boys who were

My role as Allen Brookson is significant in the case of Brookson v. Carter because I was the first to be wrongfully attacked by Wendell Carter. My role will help to prove that Carter is guilty for various reasons, and why Allen Brookson and Fred Brookson should be offered compensations for both severe physical and posttraumatic stress. The physical injuries sustained were taken to the hospital that resulted in a detrimental medical expense and traumatic stress such has weight loss, chronic anxiety, and insomnia. Essentially, the Brooksons should win this case because Carter committed a Class B misdemeanor by illegally carrying a knife that can injury someone, and we will, too, because of Assault of the third degree, Carter committed assault

Distinctive within American history, the duration in which Earl Warren served as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1953 to 1969) witnessed a vigorous court fearless to challenge controversial issues. Changing the way Americans today perceive their relationship with their government, an activist court did much to expand the rights of the individual and the power of the federal government to enforce civil rights legislation. Not since then has the Supreme Court generated so much power in shaping American culture. And because of all what Earl Warren has done he is remembered as one of the most influential Supreme Court Justices in American history. Through all the cases during Earl Warren’s tenure I strongly believe that

An analysis of history and the contemporary exercise of police practices suitably describe the experiences of many black men when dealing with law enforcement officers. Before the due process revolution that occurred in the 1960s, the rights of many back men were abused on a daily basis. These practices continue regardless of a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court that was geared towards limiting the discretion of police officers. Through the ruling, the Supreme Court sought to promote the legal rights of black American as compared to any other court in the judicial system (Maclin, 2012, p.1275). In light of these issues, the Terry v. Ohio lawsuit was filed after John W. Terry, the petitioner was stopped and frisked by an officer after the law enforcement personnel suspected him of casing a store for a possible robbery. After the police officer approached Terry for questioning, he decided to search him first, which contributed to numerous concerns regarding searches based on the Fourth Amendment. The case represents the need for a boundary between a reasonable belief and probable suspicion based on coherent facts.

The Supreme Court does a great deal for our nation today. Everyday they work on ongoing cases, making some very difficult decisions. One of these cases is the case of Timothy Carpenter, who believes it was unconstitutional when the FBI searched his cell phone records without a warrant.

ANY STATEMENTS GIVEN BY MR. JONES AFTER HE REQUESTED AN ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT BE ADMISSABLE AS EVIDENCE.

Prior to the Public Safety Realignment initiative, “more than 60,000” offenders who violated their parole returned to prison every year. With more low-level inmates returning to state prisons, California was ordered to reduce the inmate population by “33,000 in the state’s 33 prisons” in a two-year period. The primary reason for this was due to the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation no being able to afford inmates acceptable healthcare. Two class action law suits were brought about in November of 2006 (Plata v. Brown and Coleman v. Brown), the dispute was that because of overcrowding the CDCR was unable to provide adequate healthcare to prison inmates. The Coleman v. Brown case entailed the mentally disordered housed in