Fernandez Vs California Case Study

On November 25, 1999, The Coast Guard rescued 5 year old Elian Gonzalez from the Atlantic Ocean. Elian was found on an inner tube clinging to life with dehydration and hypothermia. His mother, Elisabeth Brotons, along with several others drowned on their trip from Cuba. The INS placed Plaintiff with his uncle, Lazaro Gonzalez, who lives in Miami, Florida. On November 27, 1999, Plaintiff's father, Juan Gonzalez, sent a letter to the Cuban government requesting that his son be in Cuba. The letter stated that the Plaintiff was taken out of Cuba without his father’s consent. On November 29, 1999, Lazaro Gonzalez signed and submitted an application for asylum to the INS on behalf of Elian. Shortly after, another application was submitted with Elian’s signature.

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

Luis Adolfo Gomez Zacarias was a local businessman engaged in retail sales of food and household items. For an extended period, prior to September 20, 2013, he was being extorted under death threats by an organized criminal gang, and when no longer able to pay the 500 Quetzal per month extortion demand, he was murdered. The day prior to his murder, he implored his spouse to take measures to protect herself and their child, prompting lead respondent to seek police assistance and protection when her spouse failed to arrive home from work. The police, ignored her multiple requests for help, and the following morning Luis Adolfo Gomez Zacarias was found murdered by gunshot to the head (see Tab G and Tab L). Local neighbors, familiar with police unwillingness to aid residents of the community under extortion threats by gangs, organized street protests against the police because of police inaction after lead respondent’s pleas for

In May of 2007, a man entered the Women's restroom at a horse-racing track that was occupied by two teenage sisters. The man asked the sister if they, “want to drink beer or party” (Pet. for Cert. at 2, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 2012 COA 193 (2012) (No 15-606)). The two sisters declined and the man then turned the lights off in the bathroom. The girls attempted to leave the restroom. The man put his hand on the first sister's shoulder and moved it toward her breast. The sister brushed his his hand away. The man then grabbed the second sister's shoulder and buttocks.

In 1974, Dwight Lopez and eight students were suspended for 10 days on behalf of destroying school property and disrupting the learning environment at Central High School in Columbus, Ohio. Lopez testified he was a bystander and he was innocent. In addition, Lopez testified approximately 75 other students were suspended as well. Lopez claimed his suspension without a hearing violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. During this action, the principals did not perform hearings for none of the affected students before ordering the suspensions. Due to the students not given a hearing, the principals’ actions were challenged and a class-action suit was filed asking for declaratory and injunctive

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.

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.

In the case of California v Ciralolo, the government did not do too far. In 1986 Dante Ciralolo, lived in Santa Clara California and was growing marijuana in his backyard, which was illegal. After receiving many reliable tips from the community, the police investigated these allegations. When they arrived at his home, they found a six-foot outer fence and a ten-foot inner fence surrounding his place so they couldn’t see into his backyard. The other houses in the neighborhood area did not have high fences so the police were curious of what he was doing behind the walls of his yard (Doc. B, C). Did they go too far by renting a plane to view his property and not getting a search warrant? I do not think so because this act did not defile the 4th Amendment.

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

After reading the case over and over again I have come to the conclusion that this was an interesting case to make a decision on due to the lack of substantial evidence. In reference to the case it brings me to the very first question of the assignment. What acts did Garcia do that amounted to a conspiracy? The concern in which brought up the idea of conspiracy in this case is the fact that Garcia association with his fellow gang members. This is a general agreement among gang members to support one another in fights against rival gangs can constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction of conspiracy to commit assault when the conduct of the alleged conspirators is otherwise insufficient.

Section 7 (Legal Rights) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” This section benefits all Canadians including non-citizens by ensuring that individuals receive the three main types of protection: life, liberty, and security. The right to live is the most fundamental right given to an individual. The right to liberty assures that unless individuals are imprisoned due to justice matters, they should not be subject to punishment. Lastly, the right to security allows individuals to have control over their body and its health, both physically and mentally.

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.

United States v. Lopez was a landmark case, being the first United States Supreme Court case, since the New Deal, to set limits on Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the United State Constitution. United States v. Lopez dealt with a previous decision made by the Supreme Court called the “Gun-Free Schools Zone Act of 1990,” and whether this act was constitutional. In other words, is Congress given the power by the Constitution to regulate guns in schools under the Commerce Clause?

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

Suppose that evidence was an envelope laying on your desk which was later taken without your consent or knowing from your office when a police officer came to ask you questions. Confiscation of such evidence without a signed search warrant from a judge would render the evidence inadmissible, at least it being utilized to provide direct evidence of your guiltiness. It is very important to keep in mind that the exclusionary rule applies only where the acquired evidence is in direct violation of the Constitution. It does not apply to evidence found in administrative procedures such as contact with the IRS. A great example of this sort of issue rose to the surface in the case of U.S. v. Caceres. In the case, an IRS agent recorded a conversation