Case Study: Carson's Right To Fight Against The Seizing Of Property

there have been a couple of cases that raised the questions of when eminent domain should be

David Leon Riley was pulled over by a police officer for a driving a vehicle with expired license tags. The police officer who initially stopped Riley discovered that his driver’s license had also been suspended. Following department procedures, the police officer then continued to impound his vehicle. Before the car was impounded, the police officers are required to do an inventory of all of the components of the vehicle to prevent being liable for any missing items after the car is recovered, as well as, to discover any illegal or dangerous items. During the vehicle search, officers found two handguns under the hood of Riley’s vehicle and then proceeded to arrest Riley for the possession of firearms. When the arresting officer conducted a person’s search of Riley, it was found that Riley had a cell phone in his pocket. The cell phone was taken by police and taken back to the station where an analyst discovered data on Riley’s cell phone that was ultimately used to tie Riley to a drive-by shooting that had occurred a few weeks earlier. Based on the pictures and video recovered by the detective analyst specializing in gangs, and ballistics tests conducted on the two hand guns found in Riley’s vehicle, the state of California charged Riley in connection with the shooting. The arresting officer accessed data stored on Riley’s cell phone and noticed a repeated term associated with a street gang.

The concept of eminent domain is the condemnation of property for the public’s well being or good for private use is not the original intention and should not be used in this way. Private corporations and individuals are using the initial purpose was for the acquisition of land for the building of railroads and highways. The use of eminent domain has changed over the years by law, government and legal interpretations. These changes have allowed private interest groups to petition the state and local governments for eminent domain to be declared on property where the owners refuse to sell. Each states position on eminent domain is decided by the legislature and the voters of the state for use by private corporations and individuals.

Issue: Do warrantless arrest and no probable cause determination allow for Police to detain a suspect for an extended amount of time?

Amongst topics of conversation regarding eminent domain, one will find regulatory usage of land, seizing of land for public use, and the most controversial of late, the seizing of land from a private owner and giving it to a more economically beneficial, often politically connected private owner. Kelo v New London (US 2005), has prompted dozens of proposals to reform eminent domain practices legislatively. Most of these proposals would restrict the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private individual to another. It is one thing to have a city claim property to further the development of the city by building roads, schools, etc. It is another thing altogether for the government to seize a property so as to gain money from higher taxation. For many years, however, courts have read the public-use restraint broadly, enabling governments to take property from one owner, often small and powerless, and transfer it to another, often large and politically connected, all in the name of economic development, urban renewal, or job creation.

The project was unable to obtain investments and its plans were abandoned in the end. The promises of new jobs and an increased tax revenue were all forsaken. Today, the property that was once a neighborhood for families, is a vacant property with no beneficial purpose to the community that it was meant to serve. American’s view of eminent domain, because of the Susette Kelo case, have changed dramatically since seeing the results from the economic project in New London. More Americans believe that eminent domain should only be exercised in the case of benefiting the public and not for the purpose of advancing economic activities of private parties. The case of Kelp V. New London explains how important it is as public administrators to view and interpret policies to make better decisions on how the process of implementation can better serve the needs of society for the greater

In the case of Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833) Mr. John Barron (Plaintiff), sued the city of Baltimore, Maryland (Defendant) for taking his property without compensation. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had ruined his wharf in the Baltimore Harbor by redirecting the streams by depositing around the wharf sand and earth cleared from a road construction project (1). The plaintiff argued that the city’s activities had made the waters around the wharf too shallow to dock most water crafts. As a result, the plaintiff felt his Fifth Amendment right had been violated because the government took his property without just compensation. The state court of Maryland ruled that the city of Baltimore had unconstitutionally disadvantaged

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has charged Nathan Moss (Mr. Moss) with 1 count of violating a no contact order that Claire Cohen (Ms. Cohen) put out against him. Nathan Moss and Claire Cohen are both seniors at Plymouth South High School and dated for about 10 months prior to Ms. Cohen placing a protective order against Mr. Moss.

The term “separate but equal” has a long history in our country that affect many aspects of a colored person’s life. What it meant was that whites and colored technically had the same rights, (colored were no longer slaves) but they were still separate races, they weren’t the same group. This was established by the infamous Plessy vs Ferguson case, but also was backed up by black codes and it was strengthened with Jim Crow laws, education, real estates, redlining, and the hateful culture that created it in the first place. What help start and grow these beliefs of this system was the black codes.

Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which helped define the concept of Federalism in the United States in U.S. constitutional law. The Court established a precedent that the United States Bill of Rights could not be applied to state

The decision carried out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education did wonders for the civil rights movement. By ending legal segregation and robbing it of its moral legitimacy, Brown showed that the law was on the side of black Americans. Political cartoons for as long as they have existed, have enabled the public and those less literate to stay informed on current cases and political events. With a (lower literacy rate) compared to those of their white American counterpart, these political cartoons were an excellent way to convey the importance of the Brown v. Board case in a visual rather than written way.

America's government system is powerful. One way the government flexes their muscles is through eminent domain. Eminent domain is the government's power to seize land from one and give it over to another. Most times, eminent domain is used to improve the city. There are a lot of tensions between whether eminent domain is morally right or even constitutional.

Racism has been a part of our country since the early ages. Historically, racism and equality have been central issues that have divided our country. Many actions from the past such as the decision in the Plessy versus Ferguson case, and present day actions like The Mississippi school system case have been the ongoing battle in today 's society. The struggle to achieve equality was made even more difficult by the legislation that is now considered racist in the Plessy versus Ferguson case.

There is much more civilized manners of going about obtaining land. This could include negotiation. If the government wants land they should not take citizens lands that they have worked for, maybe for most of their lives to obtain. I do not see this as fair or civilized. The only time that I believe it is acceptable to have eminent domain would be when it is being used for military use (Iowa Web).

William Faulkner wrote in his 1951 novel, Requiem for a Nun, “the past is never dead. It’s not even past.” This sentiment recurs in Go Down, Moses, which attempts to chronicle the legacies of Lucius McCaslin and his descendants. In his novel, Go Down, Moses, William Faulkner plays with time and chronology to comment on the importance and the irrelevance of history. This contradiction is central to the work’s theme of redemption and forgiveness.