What the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot compel a government employee to self-criminate themselves. What the court also ruled was, the police department had no right to terminate those individuals who decided to use their fifth amendment right (Justia, 2016). The court had asserted that “the option to lose their means of livelihood or pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak or to remain silent. (Taylor, 2009). With this being the main concern to the court the courts decided not to reach the question on deeming the voluntariness of the statements as the only issues that was presented. Garrity v. New Jersey was based upon if the officers of his or her own free choice to admit,
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.
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.
Tatro v. University of Minnesota refers to a case of the University of Minnesota bringing disciplinary action against a student for several Facebook posts. In 2009, Amanda Tatro was a junior at the University of Minnesota, enrolled in the mortuary science program taking a class with a lab working with cadavers. Since Tatro was working in a cadaver lab through the Anatomy Bequest Program, she had to sign a discloser form acknowledging that she understood and agreed to comply with the program rules, as well as “additional laboratory policies” stated in the course syllabus. Additional laboratory policies being, “the course syllabus for the anatomy lab included rules ‘set up to promote respect for the cadaver.’ The anatomy lab rules allowed ‘respectful and discreet’ ‘conversational language of cadaver dissection outside the laboratory,’ but prohibited ‘blogging’ about the anatomy lab or cadaver dissection” (Tatro v. University of Minnesota, 2012).
In the case of Sibron versus New York was an important case for the United States Constitution. Law enforcement officer, Anthony Martinez, observed Nelson Sibron for several hours, while talking to several narcotics addicts. Officer Anthony Martinez told Sibron that he is after one thing and then Sibron reach into his pocket, which he pulled out several heroin envelopes. Sibron was arrested and charged for drug trafficking. Sibron stated that his constitutional rights was violated, when he was stop and frisk search for no probable cause. The Criminal Court of New York City denied Sibron’s motion, but Sibron appealed to the court decision. The United States Supreme Court review Sibron’s case along with Peters versus New York. John Peters was
The case of New Jersey vs T.L.O was a resultant case of a search conducted by the then assistant vice principal- Theodore Choplick at Piscataway township high school with two freshmen girls -T.L.O inclusive, after a teacher had caught them smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The first girl had admitted to the offense, however, T.L.O denied this. This prompted Theodore to demand to search her purse where he found implicating evidence. In short, she was expelled and fined for 1000 USD. This led to a court case with an intent on proving that the school had violated the Fourth Amendment since the school was a Governmental organization. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
In the case, Giglio v United States in 1972, it was determined the prosecution has a legal requirement to disclose all exculpatory evidence to the defense, this rule established the application to exculpatory evidence the prosecutor may be unaware of (McDonald & Means, 2016). In the Giglio case, the prosecution provided a key witness, an accomplice to the crime, who testified he had not been made any promises of immunity for his testimony. Following Giglio’s conviction, the defense discovered there was an offer made to the accomplice by another prosecuting attorney. The case was appealed, overturned, moreover, a new trial was allowed. The credibility of the witness was lost in the previous trial, his statements under oath were that he had
1. To start with, Santobello v. New York states that the analysis does not focus on the harmlessness of the breach of a plea agreement. In this case, the original prosecutor agreed not to make any sentencing recommendations in the plea agreement, but the new prosecutor recommended the maximum sentence. The judge decided to sentence the defendant to the maximum sentence, and said that he was not influenced by the new prosecutor's breach of the plea agreement. The Supreme Court abandoned the conviction and delayed the case, stating that they made a promise in the negotiation of a plea. In other words, the breach of the plea agreement itself lead to the removal of a judgment.
In the court case Worcester v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1832 that the Cherokee Indians and Samuel Worcester created a nation holding distinct sovereign powers. This decision did not protect the Cherokees from being removed from their tribal birthplace in the Southeast.
Giglio (defendant) and Taliento (co-defendant) were thought to be committing several forgeries. The prosecution presented Taliento with immunity in trade of his testimony against Giglio. During the trial, Taliento said that the prosecution never offered leniency for his testimony. Giglio was ultimately convicted. After filing an appeal, Giglio learned of Taliento’s offer from the prosecution.
To be honest, the majority of the topics or cases discuss in the course were interesting in their right. They touched on all aspects in criminal justice,but in a more thought provoking manner. Our first discussion post on the flexibility and stability of the Constitution helped me further understand the goals of the constitution. I have not had the opportunity to study the law from that perspective since my undergraduate studies ten years ago. Unit three’s discussion involved Wisconsin v. Mitchell and Apprendi v. New Jersey. This was a favorite as well. This case viewed racism and bigotry from both sides. Those cases express that hate does not have one particular color. I will continue to agree that Mitchell’s right was not violated (Wisconsin v. Mitchell,1993). When there is proof that the intentions of a criminal are racially motive, there should, in fact, be harsher penalties. For instance, in Apprendi v. New Jersey, where the preponderance of evidence proved that Charles Apprendi crime was to intimidate the African American family that moved into the neighborhood (Apprendi v. New Jersey, 2000). To create a positive shift in the society, we as a
Maria A. Cardona, write this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of T.M v. State of Florida.
Introduction Of Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) is a court case heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case dealt with the constitutionality of the search of a public school student after she had gotten caught smoking in a public school bathroom. The search provided evidence of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and the intent of sale of drugs. The student fought the charges, stating that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Two important legal cases have given employees specific rights during investigatory interviews. The case, NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975), gave rise to employees’ Weingarten rights: Employees that face disciplinary action, or questioned about matters that could lead to disciplinary actions against them are entitled to their Weingarten rights. In the case Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, decided by the United States Supreme Court, the Garrity Rule was established. The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to order police officers to answer questions under threat of losing their jobs, and then to use the answers to incriminate them. These two rights are important for employees to know
The Fourth Amendment to the constitution protects United States citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Our forefathers recognized the harm and abuses that occurred in the colonies to innocent people by the British, and they made sure to write protections into the U.S. Constitution. Fearing the police state that any nation has the potential to become and recognizing that freedom and liberty is meaningless when victimization by the police is a real and foreboding threat the Fourth Amendment was created. The Fourth Amendment has gone through many challenges and controversies in the past, and currently the issue of how the Fourth Amendment applies to students in public schools has come to be contended in the courts. While it is
The case comes down to this fundamental question: What is the role of the police in protecting the rights of the accused, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution? The Supreme Court of the United States had made previous attempts to deal with these issues. The Court had already ruled that the Fifth Amendment protected individuals from being forced to confess. They had also held that persons accused of serious crimes have a fundamental right to an attorney, even if they cannot afford one. (Supreme Court)