California Vs Carney Case Study

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

Riley v. California is a Supreme Court case that pertains to the Fourth Amendment; specifically, the privacy clause. This case was decided by the Court in 2014 with a unanimous decision for Riley. It came to the Court after the petitioner, Riley, was stopped for a traffic violation and then arrested on a weapons charge. The arresting officer proceeded to search Riley and removed a cell phone from his pocket. After accessing the phone the officer found evidence of gang related activity. The officer took Riley back to the station and a detective that specialized in gang related crime went through the phone and found multiple pictures and videos pertaining to a shooting a few weeks prior. They sought to enhance the charges due to the evidence found on his phone that connected him to the gangs. Riley moved to suppress the evidence that was discovered on his phone; the trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. A number of interests groups appeared as amici in this case including: EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union, Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, Constitutional Accountability Center amongst others submitted briefs in support of the petitioner. Two groups submitted briefs in support of the respondent and those include Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies and Arizona et al.

In the case of Santiago v. State of New Mexico (Santiago v. State of New Mexico, 2009), security officers had responded to a fight and caught the defendant running out the front door of the Mall they were working at. The defendant was pinned to the ground and handcuffed. The security guards searched the defendant by reaching inside his pockets and removing several items, including a pill bottle containing four grams of cocaine. Shortly after, police showed up and the defendant, as well as the removed items, was turned over to police.

Factual History: In Los Angeles, California during the month of October and year of 2009, Abel Lopez was attacked and robbed by a man with a knife, he later identified as Walter Fernandez. During the confrontation between Lopez and Fernandez, Fernandez informed Lopez the territory in which Lopez was ruled by the “Drifters” After Lopez placed a call to 911, a few minutes after the attack, police and paramedics arrived on the scene. Two Los Angeles police officers, Detective Clark and Officer Cirrito, drove to a nearby alley that was often contained members of the Drifters gang. Here in the ally, a witnesses told them that the suspect was in an apartment in a house located off the

A police officer is dispatched to a call in his jurisdiction for a noise complaint. The police officer arrives hearing very loud music coming from the residence which violates a noise ordinance. The police officer knocks on the front door with no answer so he proceeds to the back door to knock when he observes what appears to be marijuana plants based on his training and experience. The police officer can seize the marijuana plants based on the Plain View Doctrine. “In Harris v. United States (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that anything a police officer sees in plain view, when the officer has a right to be where he or she is, is not the product of a search and is therefore admissible as evidence.” [1] The

Looking at the case of the State of California versus Dante Ciraolo. On September 2, 1982, Detective John Schutz of the Santa Clara Police Department received an anonymous phone complaint about someone growing marijuana in their yard. Detective Schutz, a member of the Narcotics Division, went to the location given by the caller to investigate. When he arrived at the intersection of Stebbins Avenue and Clark Avenue, he noticed the residence at 2085 Clark Avenue. From his location on the street (figure 1) Detective Schultz observed a six-foot privacy fence with an inner fence of about ten feet in height, as such, Detective Schultz could not see any evidence of any marijuana cultivation or other criminal activity.

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

Over the years, the United States has made advancements towards a society in which gender no longer acts as a deciding factor in regards to societal and legal rights. The stance of women today differs greatly from the position they held 250 or even 50 years ago. Even though women have advanced via law reforms and changing social perspective, they still remain unrepresented and uninvolved in the law, which leads to a lack of overall equality in our legal system and society.

Based on the 4th Amendment, I agree with the outcome in Supreme Court case Riley v. California No. 13-132 that search warrants are needed to search a cell phone. This case started when David Riley was stopped by police officers on August 22, 2009 in California for a speeding violation. When the police pulled him over, the found unauthorized weapons in his vehicle, leading to the cell phone search. The police repeatedly found terms associated with a local street gang, this lead to his arrest. After searching the cell phone in the police station, the officers found pictures that linked him to a shooting that occurred a few weeks earlier. Riley was convicted for possession of firearms, shooting at an occupied vehicle, and attempted murder. He was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. The California court of Appeal affirmed this.

Vote: 7/2. Justia Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the court. In which Rehnquist, C.J joined and White, Blackmum, O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter Joined. Steven J. filed an opinion in which Marshal J. joined.

In the court case United States v. Ludwig the police took a narcotics dog through a parking lot in hopes that he would find the scent of drugs (www.loompanatics.com). Since a motorized vehicle has the ability to be driven far away and evidence can be removed, police believe that under certain circumstances they can search a car without a warrant. A dog alerted the cops by letting them know he smelled the scent of narcotics. They asked the suspect if they can search his truck. The suspect didn’t give them consent he was against the search but they still took the keys from him to search the truck. They found drugs in his trunk and a couple of large bags of marijuana. The police didn’t have a warrant nor did they have permission from the suspect to search his truck. The Supreme Court first ruled that it was unlawful to search his car without a warrant and no legit reasoning for the search. Then the court ruled that it was lawful because the officers said that the dog alerting them, were their reasoning for a warrantless search. The cops also stated in court that the reason they took the suspect’s keys is because if they have didn’t, there was a possibility that he could drive off and get rid off the drugs which would be their loss of evidence. This case shows how citizens have certain rights when it comes to their vehicles but they can still be ‘violated” in a sense.

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent

One of the many differences between the federal and state courts is regarding each court’s jurisdiction (the types of cases that a court is authorized to hear). California state courts have a much broader jurisdiction than federal courts. Most hearings (felonies, family law, civil cases, probate, etc.) fall under state law and thus are within the jurisdiction of the California judicial system. (Turner et al., 2016). The cases that California courts are not allowed to hear are anything regarding United States federal law, any violations of the US Constitution, cases involving different states, bankruptcy, copyright, etc. Federal courts are limited to these types of cases as well as anything explicitly spelled out by the US Constitution or by Congress.

This essay is purposed for the evaluation of the provocative case, The State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, more commonly referred to as O.J. Simpson. On the 12th of June, 1994 the homicide of Nicole Simpson, O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife, occurred at her home. Reports of a body sprawled out the front of Nicole Simpson’s house were made through a 911 call. On arrival, police made the discovery of Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman’s dead bodies outside the house. The review of this investigation will be achieved through; Assessment of the key aspects of the process of investigation. Evaluation of the main investigative flaws made throughout the investigation. Identifying strategies to prevent these flaws from happening in

Additionally, in the case of U.S. V. Davis one roommate was present for the search and consented to the search however, a gun was found in the duffle bag of the non present roommate. The ruling suggested the roommate present couldn’t give consent to the search of the duffel bag because they didn’t have joint access to the duffle bag. Since Alex was only present during the search and they found convincing evidence against Jes, Alex couldn’t allow for the search of Jes’s belonging because Alex didn’t have joint access over his personal items including the script Murder by Monoxide. According to the case People V. Harwood the defendant let the officer search the building and during the search the officer answered the phone. The person on the phone was eager to try to buy drugs. The ruling removed the evidence from the phone call because it was not permitted to answer the phone during the search. This case is similar to our case, Detective Green shouldn’t have been rummaging through the pool house even if it was open because no one