Case Study: Albernaz V. United States

In 1996, the state of California passed the Compassionate Use Act, which legalized the use of medical marijuana. California was one of the few states at the time to legalize the use of medical marijuana, while the federal law upholds its authority to restrict citizens from using marijuana. The Compassionate Use Act conflicts with the Controlled Substances Act, which is a law enacted by Congress to regulate the use of marijuana. Nine years later, the Supreme Court is presented the case of Gonzales v. Raich. Angela Raich, who suffered from a serious illness, decided to grow her own medical marijuana for personal use. Raich actions were legal in the eyes of California, while on a federal level the country did not approve of the idea or use of

The questions presented to the Supreme Court in Raich v. Gonzales (2005) are whether the Commerce Clause affords Congress the power to ban the growth, use, and sale of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act and whether it can enforce that act against ill people whose doctors have prescribed medical marijuana as a remedy. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice John Paul Stevens employed Justice Stephen Breyer’s strand of pragmatism to answer those questions. The premise of Breyer’s approach is that the Constitution enshrines values and principles, but it grants judges the flexibility to apply those principles to changing circumstances (Yale 11). Hence, pragmatist judges embrace constitutional

Prior to this case there were two forms of gun control acts the first was that of 1968 which forbids gun sells to sell guns to people that have a felony charge that are mentally unstable and other things this was amended with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which included the need to have a background check. While working to make a system that could make the check fast it had to be done by state law enforcement. People however started to claim that this act was unconstitutional and it violated their rights given to them under the Constitution. The Petitioners filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act’s interim provisions and in each case the District

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

Gonzales v. Raich was a landmark case which determined the extent that Congress could regulate marijuana usage in California. More precisely, the case involves deliberation between the constitutionality of the Compassionate Use Act, voted on by the state of California in 1996, and the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), passed by Congress in 1970. Does the CSA, a policy which permits the regulation of certain drugs and chemicals by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), exceed the regulations set under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution? Does the Compassionate Use Act, which allows for the use of medical marijuana in California, protect citizen’s rights to use and distribute marijuana for medicinal purposes? The decision made by the Supreme Court would spark debate over these questions as well as similar topics such as federal abuse of power, doctor patient confidentiality, and the decriminalization of marijuana across America. In my paper, I will cover the events and influences leading up to the Supreme Court’s official decision, the significance of the outcome, and the questions and issues brought up in the aftermath of Gonzales v. Raich.

There are 4 Ps. Ps claim they were unlawfully detained by MOS and falsely arrested on drug charges. Ps allege that they live in a three family private house with apartments on 3 floors. Ps allege that the first floor apartment was of P Yolanda Lopez; second floor apartment was of P Yvonne (non-party), and basement apartment was of Evelyn Lopez and her 17 year old daughter, Karina Lopez. Ps Rafael Rivera and Erin Morales were staying on the first floor. P Rivera alleges that MOS entered the house and order him to get to his knee and P Rivera complied. P Rivera alleges that while he was on his knees MOS struck P Rivera in the face with the riot shield. P Evelyn Lopez alleges that defendant MOS Anthony Hughes grabbed her arm and struck her face against a wall and illegally searched her basement apartment. Defendant MOS John Natoli stated that the search warrant applied to all floors because each family has access other family’s

In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a guidance policy called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would grant temporary deportation protection to about 4.3 million undocumented immigrants. But in that year, twenty-six states challenged the DAPA guidance, therefore the Supreme Court will decide whether the states have standing to challenge DAPA if will increase the costs of state-subsidized benefits, for example drivers license , and if DAPA is lawful and constitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. This case is called United States v. Texas. The United States states that Texas lacks Article III standing to challenge

In November of 2009, Bruce Ambramski purchased a 9mm handgun for his uncle because of his discount as a former member of the police force. On the ATF form he completed with his purchase, he specified that he was not buying this firearm on another person’s behalf.

Our client, Dave Donaldson, allegedly extorted Vincent Valdor for $5,000 via email. Donaldson lives in Kentucky, and Valdor lives in Ohio. The federal statute which Donaldson allegedly violated states one may not, “gain property or money by the use or threat of violence, harm to reputation, or damage to property."

The case of U.S. v. Lopez (1995) was the case of a young man in 12th grade named Alfonso Lopez Jr. who brought a loaded gun to school and was arrested and charged under Texas law. The state charges were later dismissed and federal agents charged him because he violated the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990. This acts states that it is unlawful for people to bring firearms to a place that "the individual knows, or has a reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." He was charged by federal agents because he violated a federal criminal law, however this was also dismissed because it was unconstitutional. This was the big issue surrounding this case. The act was unconstitutional because the Supreme Court said congress went above its constitutional

MILLERSBURG — After serving eight months in prison for going into and stealing money from a Washington Township home last September, a former Wooster man last week was granted early release.

Moreover, a defendant can surely be punished twice for the same offense where the defendant engages in two instances of conduct that constitute two units of prosecution. Where, as here, a defendant has been convicted twice of the same offense, and the conduct that gave rise to the convictions constitute only one unit of prosecution, merger is not appropriate and second conviction itself is a cumulative punishment that runs contrary to the purpose of the criminal offense. Accordingly, we reject the State’s position that Caldwell’s sentences should merge, and that his two convictions for conspiracy should

We first look at the United States Attorneys Manual, 9-2.031(6)-Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy ("Petite Policy"). It is a discretionary statement made by the DOJ precluding federal prosecution following state prosecution for the same transaction without compelling federal interest. Essentially, this internal policy promotes efficiency in utilizing department resources and coordination between federal and state prosecutors. Judge Thapar’s opinion clearly compares Amy Jo Hicks with case law from criminal, employment and consumer law. This invites the displacement of an otherwise constitutional provision. The Petite Policy was adopted by the DOJ following the decision in Bartkus v. Illinois,359 US 121, the court held that the double jeopardy clause does not apply when the state prosecutes and convicts a defendant who has previously been tried for the same acts in federal court, in addition a defendant may be acquitted in federal court and convicted in state court involving the same evidence without violating the Due Process Clause. District Courts have since maintained “it is well-settled that the Petite policy affords defendants no substantive rights. It is merely an internal guideline for exercise of prosecutorial discretion, not subject to judicial review." US v. Gruttadauria Et al. 439 F.Supp.2d 240 (2006). Under the pretenses of denying Hicks a meaningful hearing, denying a criminal defendant a chance to address injurious government action based on internal guidelines would result in fundamentally the same il-legitimacies. If the government deviates from this internal policy, this directly affects people's rights because although the provision aims at limiting dual prosecution, it is not constitutionally mandated nor does it grant an accused with any defensible rights. To rule the

Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) The Court held that a defendant must prove there is a legitimate expectation of privacy for a search to be challenged.

By way of background, Wisconsin’s current sentencing structure is relatively new; it was overhauled between 1998 and 2003 under the provisions of the state’s Truth