Florida Supreme Court V. Dale Norman Case Analysis

The trial court denied Harris’s motion to suppress evidence that was found when Officer Wheetley performed a search, and the court found that Wheetley had probable cause to search Harris’s vehicle. The defendant entered a not guilty plea and appealed to the intermediate state court. The intermediate state court affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that Wheetley lacked probable cause. When the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, they rejected and reversed the decision that the Florida Supreme court made, and they upheld the decision of the trial court.

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

In order for the State of Oklahoma to find an individual incompetent to Stand Trial it requisites a "clear & convincing" proof of 75% percent or higher to discover an individual who has committed a felony incompetent to stand trial (IST). Byron Keith Cooper was accused of murdering an 86 year old lady. At the time of his trial he started talking to someone or something that no one else could see or hear while he was bending down in a fetal position (Cooper v. Oklahoma, 1996).

As we look at our history we can see that every amendment to the constitution has been challenged in court at one time or another. As long as man or woman has free will and different interpretations of things legal battles will continue. I chose the district of Columbia v Heller I chose this because the Second Amendment is one that I follow closely. The District of Columbia and the Washington DC metropolitan police department with the government entities involved in the case. The petitioner was the district of Columbia and the respondent was Dick Anthony Heller. The District of Columbia and acted a law that made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and also prohibited the registration of handguns virtually making it impossible for anyone

A lot of people argue over which rights are protected by the Second Amendment that applies the average citizen. Due to this argument many court cases have been filed including The District of Colombia v. Heller. Heller wanted to register a handgun for him to use as a self-defense weapon for him to keep in his home, The District of Columbia denied his requested to get the handgun registered. They stated that the law prohibits the ownership of a firearm if not being used as through a lawfully organization, even as lawfully owned firearms were to be unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock. Strongly disagreeing with this Heller filed a court case against The District of Columbia, and they fought back hard. You see the second amendment

The case of Dred Scott v. Sanford depicts how a Black-American struggles for his right to become a free man. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was ignored in the case. On the other had the case of Korematsu v. United States shows a clear violation of amendments in the U.S constitution. The citizenship of Japanese Americans is questioned in the case. By analyzing the decision made in the cases of Dred Scott and Korematsu, were a clear violation of U.S constitution. This is significant because Dred Scott and Korematsu demonstrated the essence of racial biasness.

In the U.S. Constitution we have the Preamble, the seven Articles, and the 27 Amendments. Despite that our rights/liberties are protected there will be cases where these rights are violated. In 2008, the Washington D.C. v Heller case dealt with the Second Amendment which questioned if we have a right to own a handgun? The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This case dealt whether it was a violation to have a law that prevents from having a registered loaded handgun in ones home to feel safe and protected.

In all criminal cases, Defendants have the right to Due Process of law and essentially has the right to waive their presence during their trial. In Kathy Robert’s case she was bound and gagged but not removed from the court entirely. In State v. Lee, Lee was first removed from the court after several interruptions before being handcuffed and gagged. There are three constitutionally acceptable ways to approach a disruptive defendant. However; Binding and gagging should be the last resort for the judge. First, the judge should cite the defendant for contempt of court if continued interruptions occur. If the defendant remains disrespectful and disruptive they lose their right to be present at the trial and the judge may remove them from the court until they can control themselves such as the judge did in State v. Lee. After both actions have been dealt and the defendant is belligerent then the judge may bind and gag

Supreme Court answered a constitutional question about whether the right to “keep and bear arms” is an individual right unconnected to service in the militia or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias. The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful use, such as self-defense, in the home. It struck provisions of a D.C. law that (1) effectively banned possession of handguns by non-law enforcement officials and (2) required lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded, disassembled, or locked when not located at a business place or being used for lawful recreational activities, as unconstitutional. A range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. These include, but not necessarily limited to, laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas. Justices Stevens and Breyer filed separate dissenting opinions. “After an extensive review of the Second Amendment text and historical record, Scalia concluded that the individual right interpretation is supported by (1) the historical record; (2) the amendment's drafting history; and (3) interpretations of the amendment by scholars, courts, and legislators through the late nineteenth century” (Rose,

The District of Columbia is the central hub of the United States government. It is a place where the nations top elected officials work daily, but it is also a proving ground for laws that could be deemed unconstitutional, such as the restriction of concealed carry permits to those residents, who “demonstrate a “good reason to fear injury.” There was a ban on all guns within the District of Columbia until 2008, when the Supreme Court filed its opinion in the case of District of Columbia versus Heller. The battle over gun rights is one that has only been inflamed in recent years as more media attention is devoted to firearm related incidents. The concealed carry laws within the District of Columbia are some of the strictest in the United States having only approved eighty-eight people for permits while declining the applications of over three-hundred. On September 20th, oral arguments will be made in front of a panel comprised of three judges. In court filings the gun rights activists are citing the fact that the District’s requirement to show extraordinary threat is unconstitutional.

Miller case that made it to the supreme court in 1939. In The Handgun Control Dbate , it talks about if the 2nd amendment says if youre aloud to have a gun for militia purposes or if you can have a gun just to have one. The text writes "..spectically mention millers lack of memebership in the milita, the NBA therefore concludes that individual not in the military have a right to bear arms as long as they do some for miliarty purpose." This is important because the right to bear arm isnt only to have a gun but for other purpose too. These examples show why and how people own a gun.

Columbia v. Heller was the case and it has ruled that the second amendment grants the right for all citizens to own a firearm for their own personal use. The district of Columbia bans the possession of handguns , no one may carry a handgun without a license unless the chief of police gives the ok. Residents are required to keep anytype of arms “unloaded and dissembled”. Heller is a police officer authorized to carry a handgun when he's on duty, and he had applied for a registration for a handgun so he can keep it at his home. Soon later the district denied his registration, The registration of handguns, and the requirements for it violated the second Amendment. Heller argued the right to bear arms is fundamental , when the courts review gun-control laws they should apply a strict standard and only allow these laws to stand when the government can show that it has a very important interest that is advance by the law. The court ruled the second amendment to the U.S constitution grants people to keep and bear arms, this applies to state local and federal

The New York Times, in an editorial published June 28, 2010, harshly criticized the United States Supreme Court for overturning the city of Chicago's ban on hand gun ownership. Calling the decision "infuriatingly abstract" the paper predicted the results of high court's ruling would be "all too real and bloody." The issue at hand is the conflict arising between individual rights and societal security.

The “right to bear arms” should be granted to people only who are in need for protection. Guns are simply taking lives of innocent people and the judges should take that into consideration. “From 2014 to 2015, the homicide rate in the district increased 54 percent (Vogue)”. This has to be stopped, crime rates are dramatically increasing in the United States. Guns are being used more frequently for violence than they are being used for protection. “Hillary Clinton has advocated for stronger rights (Vogue)”. Gun rights is major and growing concern to the extent where it has traveled into presidential campaigns. Lives of people should have more value than the second amendment. The Bill of Rights were created to protect the people, however if there

There was much controversy between all judges, yet we cannot dispute over what is directly written or left unwritten. Yet, a wrong ruling came to be, despite how clear the decision should be to all those who read the facts of the case and the constitution itself. The second amendment states in its very beginning that it is referring to a well-regulated militia, meaning not the random individuals of our nation. When our founding fathers wrote the words of our constitution they were concerned for their nation’s safety, and the same is true today. This is exactly why we have implemented trained and regulated police and military, the people who lay down their lives for our citizens so that there are no need for personal defenses. We do not require extra measures to make our communities more safe, but respect that there are already