Case Law 2031 Vs. California Trial

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.

“Testimonials during court hearings are performed under oath, hence the statements of an individual being examined are assumed to be true and no other statement should be falsified or forged. When the officer does not pronounce the truth in court, he or she is still capable of providing a reason for his deception, based on a substitute arrangement, such as when he or she is operating as a witness to the prosecution and is not considered as the defendant in a court case. However, it is also required that the officer is conscious of the rules of the court system that he or she has sworn to tell the truth during examination” (Chevigny , 1969).

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.

In the case of Lobato v. the State of Nevada, it is hard to see how someone could be convicted with evidence that does not make very much sense at all. My groups responsibility was to cover the prosecution side and five pieces of evidence of the case using the information from the news article by Joshua Longobardy titled, “Kirsten Blaise Lobato is accused in a gruesome slaying. Did she do it?”. Upon the detective arriving to the scene of the crime, they removed the debris that covered the body from complete view. This debris included a full sheet of cardboard with a bloody footprint on it and a clear plastic bag wrapped around the groin region. Once this was removed it was discovered that the penis had been sliced off from the base, as well as six of his teeth were found near his body. After several days they were able to identify the man as Duran Bailey, a 44-year-old black male. Another piece of evidence recovered at first with Baileys personal belongings was a piece of chewed gum. When the detectives called Lobato in for questioning, she gave them a statement of how she pulled a knife on a man who tried to attack her. This statement however was for a completely different altercation than what the police were questioning for. Other evidence that came into question were the tire impressions near the entrance of the enclosure, fingerprints lifted from the dumpster, and a foreign piece of hair on Baileys groin region. The argument being made from

During the supreme court case U.S v. Lopez, the United States Federal Government’s argument was that carrying a firearm inside an educational environment would lead to a violent crime. A violent crime ultimately affects the population of a school. Due to this, the federal government believed that the commerce clause should be practiced in this case. The Supreme Court backed the previous decision offered by the Five Court of Appeals. In United States v. Lopez, the U.S Supreme Court stated that Congress actually has the ability to make laws under the Clause, but these powers were limited and could not affect the Lopez case.

Privacy, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is the quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others, and the state of being free from public attention or unsanctioned intrusion. Interestingly, the Constitution of the United States does not expressly protect a person 's right to privacy; there are however some provisions to privacy within the Bill of Right and the Amendments to the Constitution. Among them are the first amendment, that ensures the privacy or belief, the third amendment, that ensures the privacy of home, and the fourth amendment, that ensures the privacy of person and possession.

Introduction Of Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) is a court case heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case dealt with the constitutionality of the search of a public school student after she had gotten caught smoking in a public school bathroom. The search provided evidence of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and the intent of sale of drugs. The student fought the charges, stating that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Defendant, Preston G. Holmes, III and Matthew D. Jones, by and through counsel, Vernida R. Chaney and Eugene Gorokhov, and respectfully move this Honorable Court to exclude inadmissible hearsay evidence that the government may seek to introduce at trial. Specifically, the defendants move to exclude the records and contents thereof (1) U-Haul, (2) Sharifa Shuler’s cellphone, (3) automatic license plate reader, and (4) gun manufacturers.

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.

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

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.

Thus, any out of court statements made by witnesses and/or victims to law enforcement must be excluded unless the defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine the unavailable witnesses (Byrom, 2005). The only non-testimonial statements that would be utilized in court, without direct testimony from the witness and/or complainant, were the taped 911 phone calls reporting the incident. If the victim testified, their previous statements would be allowed as evidence without limitation because the witness was subjected to cross-examination. However, if the victim refused to testify, any testimonials made to law enforcement were not allowed as evidence in the court proceedings.

Turning to the case of Guy Paul Morin, one will see that the witness account played a great deal in the conviction of Morin. Mr. X falsely testified against Morin because he did not like Morin. The crown also used evidence from undercover officers where statements of Morin were recorded on a 60 minute tape recorder, which the officers believed to be 90 minutes. This made the case interesting because the crown used this instance for saying that Morin confessed to the crime after 60 minutes. This showed false accusation that was made both by the police officers and crown attorneys.

The percentage of the white male population with a high school diploma in 1964 was 27.6%, while only 14.6% of black males had a high school diploma. This was because black people had a harder time getting into schools. Judgment because of a persons race should not be allowed, so people decided to take it to court. Not to mention, Supreme Court cases have really driven people's need and want for civil rights: Loving v. Virginia (1967), Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971), Bakke v. University of California (1978).

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