Case Citation : Kentucky V.

The case of Mercer v. Duke University deals with the issue of women being allowed to play on contact sports teams. This case also raises issues of discrimination and whether or not federally funded institutions are prohibited from discrimination under Title IX. This is a very good case because it deals with a high-profile university and whether or not discrimination was an issue of one of the university’s college athletics.

The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. The Kent case helped lead the way in the development of a list of eight criteria and principles. This creation of these criteria and principle has helped protect the offender and public for more than forty-five years. Which as a reason has forever changed the process of waving a juvenile into the adult system (Find Law, 2014).

Case Procedural History: Roy Caballes tried to suppress the drugs seized in the stop by claiming that the state troopers did not have probable cause to search his vehicle. The trial judge denied the motion to suppress the seized marijuana. The trial judge held that the use of the drug dog did not prolong the duration

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

The defendant, Jim through his lawyer, has the right to appeal for another hearing of his case in a supreme court. When a state court decision is not satisfactory to the defendant because of lack of reasonable explanation, the defendant can ask for clarification for the decision made. The search and seizure of illegal drugs in Mr. Jim’s house was by nature illegal. To begin with the officers were acting on an invalid search warrant which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and a police misconduct. The Fourth Amendment was implemented to guard the citizen's privacy rights and restricts the police against unreasonable searches and seizures. For this reason, the drugs seized at Jim’s house should not be used as evidence to convict him. Jim

Facts: August 7, 1999, a car occupied by three men, Donte Partlow (driver and owner of vehicle) accused Pringle (front seat passenger), and Otis Smith riding in the back seat, were ultimately pulled over by a police officer for driving over the speed limit. Upon the officer approaching the vehicle, he asked to see Partlow’s license and registration, and as the defendant opened his glovebox, a fairly large sum of money was exposed in the amount of $763. The officer then returned to his patrol car to check Parlow’s license to ensure he had no warrants of anything outstanding, Partlow came out clear, so he issued Partlow a verbal warning. Upon arrival of the second officer he asked if they minded he search the vehicle, Partlow had no issues and agreed to the search. The police not only found the $763 in the glove compartment but also five glassine Baggies of cocaine stashed behind the backseat armrest. The officers questioned the men as to who the cash and drugs belong too, none of them took ownership, the officers advised them that if no one claim the drugs and cash as theirs, they all would be arrested and charged. So, all three were arrested and taken to jail. Later on, in the morning Pringle decided he would waived his Miranda rights, then made a full verbal and written admission that the cash and drugs were his

Mitchell, People v. Faulkner, and Kentucky v. King. People v. Mitchell provides a three-prong approach to warrantless searches due to the emergency doctrine. It parallels the current case as it proves that Officer Flanegan’s approach in searching the defendant’s apartment was justified because he had reasonable grounds to believe that there was an emergency at hand. For example, an emergency involved the possibility of children ingesting the pills. Moreover, People v. Faulkner and Kentucky v. King are equal in terms of importance. As shown in both People v. Faulkner and Kentucky v. King, exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the defendant’s apartment. In People v. Faulkner, police officers experienced a narcotic drug deal, and it immediately led to a hot pursuit. They then entered the defendant’s apartment without a warrant. Due to the presence of exigent circumstances, such as the strong likelihood that the narcotics could be destroyed, the officers were justified in their actions. Kentucky v. King offers a similar situation, as it also involved a warrantless entry into a defendant’s apartment to prevent the destruction of evidence. These two cases both parallel the current case as it shows that the warrantless entry and search of the defendant’s apartment and backyard was proper due to exigent

In the case of Weeks v. U.S., 232 U.S. 383 (1914) Mr. Fremont Weeks (Defendant) was arrested by a police officer without a search warrant at the Union Station (his employer) in Kansas City, Missouri. Succeeding, Mr. Week’s arrest auxiliary police officers had gone to the defendant’s residence, and was apprised by a neighbor where the defendant kept his key. The police officers procured the key, then entered the residence. The officers searched the defendant’s room and confiscated various documents and items. Afterwards, the defendant’s possessions were turned over to the United States marshal. Later that day the police officers returned with the marshal, whom also did not have a search warrant. The marshal thought he might find additional evidence,

P alleges false arrest. P alleges that MOS entered her apartment and placed her, her parents, and brother in handcuffs and had them stand against a wall. P alleges that defendant MOS Jeffrey Sisco inappropriately searched her by touching her inner thighs and buttocks. P alleges that she requested at a female MOS search her and defendant MOS Sico denied it and refused to loosen her handcuffs. Defendant Jeffery Sisco states that he was executing a search warrant after two positive controlled buys were conducted. ESU entered the apartment first and searched and handcuffed everyone then MOS Sisco and other MOS entered the apartment. MOS Sisco does not recall P asking to have her handcuffs loosen and did not search her. MOS recovered narcotics and

We have the court case Florida v Jardines. This court case is about Joelis Jardines and how there was suspicion that her house was being used to grow marijuana. Two detectives went to the front of Jardine’s house, and the detective dog scented the use of narcotics, particularly marijuana. The detective applied for a search warrant, which was issued. The search confirmed that marijuana was being grown inside Jardine’s home. Jardine was then arrested, and argued that the detective dog’s sniff was an impermissible search under the fourth amendment of the Constitution.

Plaintiff claims false arrest and denial of medical attention. Plaintiff states officers entered his godmother’s apartment, handcuffed and removed him from the apartment. Plaintiff states he informed officers that he was a Type Diabetic and requested to get his medication however officer did not allow him. Per the Law Department abstract provided, Det. Hernandez was part of the 12 member team who was executing a search warrant. Four people were arrested inside the apartment where officers recovered marijuana, heroin, and crack cocaine. Det. Hernandez states none of the individuals arrested requested medical

The first issue in this case arose from a search of Mr. Bart Brie’s shared studio apartment two City of Silver Lake Police officers conducted after they received consent from Ms. Barbara Brie to do so with no limitations. During that search, the officers seized white pills and money from a shoebox that was found amongst Mr. Brie’s possessions in the apartment. Before opening the shoebox, the officers questioned Ms. Brie about whether it was hers, she responded that the shoebox had come from a pair of her shoes and she had been the one who placed it where it was found. Mr. Brie filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in the search, arguing that his mother’s authority to consent to it was ambiguous and that such ambiguity should have rendered

Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Jordan School District (“the District”) hereby moves for an order granting summary judgment regarding Plaintiff Susan Clark’s (“Clark”) claim she was illegally searched in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. This court is authorized to grant summary judgment where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Summary judgment in favor of the District is appropriate in this case. First, there is no dispute of material facts as demonstrated in Section II of this memorandum. Second, Fourth Amendment cases may be decided as a matter of law. 19 Solid Waste Dep 't Mechs. v. City of Albuquerque, 156 F.3d 1068, 1071 (10th Cir. 1998). Third, the evidence requires a rational trier of fact to find for the District as supported in the argument below.

The other three Supreme Court decisions were In re Winship (1970), in which the Court found that when establishing guilt of criminal charges the strict "reasonable-doubt" standard must be applied to both adults and juveniles alike; McKiever v. Pennsylvania (1971), in which the Court ruled that because juvenile cases are not considered either civil or criminal, the whole of the Sixth Amendment does not necessarily apply, and, therefore, there is no requirement for a jury trial in juvenile cases; and Breed v. Jones (1975), in which the Supreme Court held that trying a juvenile in an adult court after an adjudication in juvenile court constituted double

“The Supreme Court and Police Searches” by the editorial board for The New York Times is about the case being argued in front of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States needs to decide whether the evidence an officer obtained illegally would be used in court or thrown out due to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule states any evidence illegally obtained can not be used against the wrongdoer. In the case being brought before the Supreme Court, an officer was informed of drugs being sold out of someone's house and was suspicious of the activity. The officer stopped, Edward Stieff, one of the men he saw leaving the house and asked for identification. After the officer ran Edward’s information he was informed of the warrant currently on Edward. Then the officer conducted a search where he found drugs. The reason the supreme court is involved is on the basis of did the officer have the right to stop Edward. The Utah Supreme Court has ruled the drug evidence against Edward was inadmissible. Now the decision is left to the Supreme Court (“The Supreme Court and