Criminal Justice Essay

The case involved the constitutionality of regulating the length of a police officer’s hair. The regulations banned flared sideburns, beards and required hair to be trimmed and well groomed. The petitioner challenged the regulation. His argument was that the regulations violated his rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth amendment (Yarbrough, 1977).

A case challenging a statute as violating a person's rights under the U. S. Constitution.

The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.

Judy Madsen and other protesters (the Petitioners) protest abortion clinics run by the Women’s Health Center (the Respondents). The protesters picketed and gave some sidewalk counseling outside the

As a result, every citizen is then forever directly or indirectly affected by the ruling. One such example is the case of the State of Ohio v. Petitioner John W. Terry, who was stopped and searched by an officer after the officer observed the Petitioner seemingly casing a store for a potential robbery. The officer approached the Petitioner for questioning and decided to search him first. (Casebriefs.com). The matter called into question concerns of a possible violation of Mr. Terry’s Fourth Amendment rights.

The famous Supreme Court case, Tinker vs. Des Moines, was one the swept the nation. It was a highly debatable, controversial, substantial, and captivating case, resulting in it discussion across America. The case pinned two teens from the Tinker family, alongside one of their friends, against the school board of Des Moines, Iowa. The teenagers were suspended from their school for wearing armbands to protest the government’s policy in Vietnam. The case, which started in lower court systems, was ruled in favor in the teenagers in the Supreme Court, however the case was ruled in the opposite direction in the courts that the case passed through before. The stronger argument, the majority opinion, stated the constitutional facts, it stated that the student’s actions were passive and protected under the First Amendment; however the dissent argued that the behavior of the students was disruptive by distracting the other pupils of the classroom.

On November 18, 2011, charges were brought against Antoine Jones for possession of drug trafficking. The case was held by the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 10-1259, Citation 565 U.S 132 s. Ct. 945, 181 L. Ed 2d 911; United States, petitioner v. Antoine Jones. All 9 parties of the Supreme Court were present for the trial as well as the plaintiffs which were the law enforcements along with Deputy Michael R. Dreeben and the defendant Antoine Jones. Each party had a chance to deliberate their opinions and stating their case against Antoine Jones. This case was not only brought into court for Mr. Jones’s cocaine distribution but for authorities violating Antoine Jones Fourth Amendment rights by planting a global positioning system on

In this case, I am presenting an individual citizens Fourth Amendment protection captivated from Jones and others individuals. The government started investigating Jones with a suspicions conspiracy of drug trafficking. A tracking device installed on the defendants’ vehicle after a terminated authorize a warrant permanent to the Government to search and install a GPA on Jones vehicle. Antoine Jones and others with the same conspiracy of the investigation were sentenced life imprisoned by the District Court Juries of Washington District of Columbia. The jury found Jones guilty of drug trafficking and possessions. The 12 amendments proposed in 1789, that constitutions the Bill of Rights under no circumstance to protections individualities

Suspect (unknown name), is seeking to suppress drug evidence seized in his residence that could lead to an indictment for trafficking drugs. The warrant to search the house was based on evidence obtained through the installation of a warrantless GPS device to his vehicle. In the case of State v. Johnson 2011-0033, evidence collected through a warrantless GPS led to

UCR or known as the Uniform crime reports is an annual report published by the FBI in the DOJ, which is meant to estimate most of the major street crimes in the United States.The main purpose of the UCR is basically to collect as many crimes or reliable crimes that come up as crime statistics so it can be used in our law enforcement administration. The Ucr is a very helpful tool for the law. The system was created in 1929. It provided information for criminologists,sociologists, and even the media. The Ucr mostly concentrates on assaults and robberies. The NIBRS or the national incident based reporting system is the system that the government uses for gathering data about recent or past crimes. The system has a lot of purposes but one of the main purposes’ is to evaluate the crimes associated with any current culture of violence theories.

There are three significant issues concerning law enforcement, namely enacting the law, police discretion, and assessment of criminal behavior. Different entities create and enact laws that are specific for the societies those laws represent.

Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. They stated that “protecting people from speech they do not want to hear is not a function that the First Amendment allows the government to undertake in the public streets and sidewalks.” For them, the Massachusetts law was in fact aiming to discriminate against opponents of abortion on the basis of content of speech because the statute inhibited patients seeking abortions to so much as hear about McCullen’s anti-abortion views that were at odds with those of the clinic. The second concurring opinion held by Samuel A. Alito Jr. adds that the statute had “blatantly [discriminated] based on viewpoint.” He continued, “critics of the clinic are silenced, while the clinic may authorize its employees to express speech in support of the clinic and its work.” Alito suggested that not only did the Massachusetts law limit McCullen’s speech because of its content, but also favored the clinics point of view over anti-abortion views through the creation of the 35-foot buffer

In the case of Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a law may not punish a status; i.e., one may not be punished to being an alcoholic or for being addicted to drugs. However, of course, one may be punished for actions such as abusing drugs. The question becomes; What if the status “forces” the action? What if a person, because of his/her addiction to drugs, is “forced” by the addiction to purchase and abuse the illegal drugs? Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?

The evolution of technology demanded changes be made to the traditional rule (Kerr, 2014). Technological advancements led to the formation of a “special” rule formulated to, protect the rights of those arrest possessing cell phones or any type of electronic storage device (Kerr, 2014). With the new ruling came many issues as to whether exceptions apply such as the chimel rule, to those carrying a cell phone (Kerr, 2014). According to the U.S. Supreme Court, warrantless narrow searches are prohibited but invasive searches are not (Kerr, 2014). For example, a warrantless search can be conducted of physical storage devices and a physical item, such as a package of cigarettes (Kerr, 2014). On the other hand, the warrantless search of a cell phone stored in the arrestee’s pocket is not prohibited and considered unconstitutional (Kerr,

or she did not nee to record it. If the Government do succeed in the