Chick Wo V. Court Case Summary

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

The Chinese laborers were signed to five-year contracts, after those five years around half returned to China while the other half stayed, creating Honolulu’s Chinatown. The neighborhood quickly grew with around 6,000 people occupying it. But in 1886 a fire broke out and destroyed eight blocks of Chinatown. The government responded to this fire by putting building restrictions, sadly none of those were enforced causing more rickety buildings to be built. In 1900 Chinatown became quarantined thanks to the Black Death. An answer to this solution was “sanitary fires” to try to prevent further spread of the disease.

A large influx of colored people created many problems. First, there was a major problem in the availability in housing, of which was responded to with racism. This is the root for the hatred between the black and white communities. There wasn’t enough housing in the “black belt” community, so Negroes began to spill into white neighborhoods. The very existence of a colored person in a neighborhood would lower the property values. When a house was sold to a colored person, the rent for the house would be higher than the previous, white owner’s rent. Real Estate companies believed that “it is a matter of common knowledge that house after house…whether under white or black agents, comes to the Negro at an increased rental” (Sandburg 46). They sold housing despite the fact that “the Negro in Chicago, paid a lower wage than the white workman” (47), and that black people would have

In the United States, we are known as a nation with equal rights. However, in our history, public issues arise jeopardizing the difference between the common good and individual rights. The Chinese Exclusion Act was one issue that was very controversial. Many people immigrate to our nation as a new start, a new beginning. In the Western United States, many immigrants were from China. Nativists believed America is for Americans only and no other race. This made many people hostile and discriminate Chinese people. Eventually, the Chinese Exclusion Act was signed by Chester A Arthur barring Chinese people wishing to immigrate to America. This violated their individual rights because they thought it was for the common good, however it violated our constitution. Violating their individual rights, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion act, disabling many chinese people to emigrate back to America which resulted in opposition and hatred, even though America believed it was for the common good. I believe it was unconstitutional as many Chinese people had no power to voice their opinion.

Today I was able to have a quick interview with the honorable Mrs.Salvarez. I asked her a few questions about what she does in the government and if she could clarify some things.

The assumption approach is the result of two Supreme Court cases, Horowitz and Ewing. In Horowitz, a medical student brought a due process claim against the University of Missouri-Kansas City for dismissing her for academic reasons. The Supreme Court first discussed whether Horowitz had a protected interest. The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff never alleged a property interest, but that if she were to do so, she would have to rely upon Missouri state law to have a valid claim. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court assumed the plaintiff had a property interest in her case without deciding the question. Instead of addressing the property interest question, the Supreme Court found that the university provided the plaintiff sufficient process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore the Supreme Court never determined whether the student had a property interest in her education.

Although Etzewieler allegedly knew Bailey was intoxicated, he still allowed Bailey to use his vehicle while he

McCutcheon v. FEC was a landmark case in American campaign finance law which challenged that it is unconstitutional to limit an individual’s donations to as many parties as they want because in doing so their freedom of speech is being violated. The plaintiff is Shaun McCutcheon who is part of the Jefferson County Republic Party Steering Committee as well as the Reagan Foundation. The Republican National Committee was also a plaintiff. This case is a constitutional challenge to aggregate limits on contributions to federal candidates and to political committees such as PACs and parties. These aggregate limits restrict the total amount of money an individual may contribute to all candidates or all political committees during an election cycle. The plaintiff did not challenge the individual contribution limits on particular political entities but challenged the additional cap BCRA places on the total an individual can place on all political contributions. BCRA stands for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which addressed two main issues: “prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits . . . and the proliferation of issue advocacy ads” (which is defined as “electioneering communication” and was over turned in Citizens United v. FEC) (Campaign Finance Law Quick Reference for Reporters). So what does this mean exactly?

Jones, “the Government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search.’” They stressed the importance of fact that the Government had “physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information.” Under these circumstances, it was not necessary to inquire about the defendant’s expectation of privacy in his vehicle’s movements in order to determine if a Fourth Amendment search had occurred. They continued to reaffirmed this principle in Florida v. Jardines, where they held that having a drug-sniffing dog nose around a suspect’s front porch was a search, because police physically entered the enclosure of the home and gathered information without being permitted by the

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.

Abortion has been one of the most controversial topics of America fought between two sides since the 1800s. It was not until the 1973 Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade, that the two sides that are known today as Pro-Choice and Pro-Life emerged as the names of the people fighting for each of their thoughts and beliefs.

Whether Gregory Johnson burning of the American Flag is considered expressive speech thus allowing him to challenge his conviction under the First Amendment freedom of speech.

CM spoke to Sergio Paredes, CMO Court Liaison regarding an update on Dre’quan (youth) OOH treatment status. CM informed Mr. Paredes that the Clinical Director at Daytop is still reviewing the referral documents and Daytop have not contacted CM regarding an update on youth’s status yet. Mr. Paredes provided CM with Honoria Forte (Youth’s Attorney) for CM to follow-up with attorney regarding this matter.

In 1882 the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed by Congress. This act exiled Chinese laborers from arriving in the United States. This was the first time ever that a specific ethnicity was banned from immigrating to the U.S.A. Racism against the Chinese was strong, so the ban remained for ten years, but was eventually made “permanent”. However, China soon became a war ally in World War II, so the ban was repealed in 1943.

In the Supreme Court case R. V Hutchinson is a legal case where Craig Jaret Hutchinson was charged with aggravated sexual assault in the lower court after the complainant had consented to have sexual intercourse but wanted Hutchinson to wear a condom. However, Hutchinson poked holes in the condom unknown to the complainant. This resulted in pregnancy. In the Supreme Court case, the file says, “Mr. Hutchinson was charged with aggravated sexual assault. The complainant said that she did not consent to unprotected sex. The trial judge agreed and convicted Mr. Hutchinson of sexual assault (2011 NSSC 361, 311 N.S.R. (2d) 1) (Supreme Court, 2014).” This quote from the supreme court judgment is explaining how Mr. Hutchinson was convicted of aggravated sexual assault under the criminal code Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 265(3) (c), 273.1(1). This section of the code focuses on the meaning of consent and when consent has not been obtained from the complainant. Consent can be obtained through multiple ways such as verbal agreement. However, consent cannot be attained when one person is forceful, uses threat or fear to manipulate the other party, fraud, or abuse of power.