Jones V. North Carolina

The right to a speedy trial is considered an essential part of the due process applicable against the states because of the decision in the case of Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) and ultimately the inclusion of it within the fourteenth amendment, that was granted by the doctrine of selective incorporation. In this particular case, the defendant Klopfer appealed to the supreme court because his trial had been postponed to be brought up again in the future when desired. Klopfer claimed that the right to a speedy trial, granted by the Sixth Amendment, should be pertinent to a state’s criminal prosecution due to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Ingram, 2009). The case was examined by the supreme court who ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a crucial basic right, just as the other rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, that has been around for a very long time (Steinberg, 1975).

As technology advances, the world is forced to adapt as an increasingly quick pace. Specifically, our justice system must consider the constitutionality of surveillance and other information gathering techniques and how they coincide with current interpretations of the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 2013 case of Maryland v King explicitly related to the legality of DNA collection of individuals early in the booking process for serious crimes. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that pre-conviction DNA collection of those arrested for serious crimes is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment; a decision that will

On the night of October 3rd, 1974 at approximately 10:45 p.m. Edward Garner was shot by Officer Hymon in an attempt to stop him from escaping a crime scene. Garner died on the operating table due to the gunshot wound on the back of his head. His crime was burglary and he was found with a mere ten dollars and a purse. The case was argued on October 30th, 1984 and a decision was made on March 27th, 1985. The father of Edward Garner believed his son’s constitutional rights were violated by the defendants Officer Hymon, the Police Department, and the Mayor of the city of Memphis. With a 6-3 decision, the Justices’ decided that Officer Hymon was acting justly under the fourth amendment that states that deadly force is constitutional as long as it is “reasonable”. I believe Officer Hymon was acting in good faith and simply fulfilling his duty to protect the public and stop criminals from escaping punishment.

When Dred Scott v. Sandford was decided in 1857, it made an enormous impact on the United States. It riled up both pro- and anti-slavery Americans. It angered many Americans in an extreme example of judicial activism. Some say it made the Civil War inevitable. By the time the dust had settled and the 13th and 14th Amendments reversed the Court’s decision, Dred Scott could be considered one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. And yet, although the case was egregiously wrong, it still can be considered a “great case”.

The United States Supreme Court consists of eight associate justices and one chief justice who are petitioned more than 5,000 times a year to hear various cases (Before the Court in Miller V. Alabama, 2012). At its discretion, the Supreme Court selects which cases they choose to review. Some of the selected cases began in the state court system and others began in the federal court system. On June 25, 2012 the justices of the Supreme Court weighed in on the constitutionality of life without parole for juvenile offenders. The case was Miller v. Alabama and actually included another case, Jackson v Hobbs, as well (2012). Both were criminal cases involving 14 year old boys who were

In the case of the State of North Carolina v. Lester Gerard Packingham, the question of whether a state can restrict sex offender’s from being on social media sites without restricting their constitutional rights is played out. Lester Packingham is a registered sex offender who was caught having a Facebook website profile even though it is against North Carolina state law. This paper will explore the constitutionality of N.C. Gen Stat. § 14–202.5 (2011) and will analyze the legal opinions of this case from both the Court of Appeals of North Carolina and Supreme Court of North Carolina and make an educated decision on whether the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s decision should be upheld or reversed.

the United States v. Jones case, but the North Carolina Court of Appeals, disagreed. The court determined that the Jones case was not applicable to Grady and that using an ankle bracelet did not constitute a search. The court also cited an earlier precedent in the case of Bowditch that suggested sex offenders “have a lesser expectation of privacy against monitoring”. Petition for the North Carolina Supreme Court was denied. The case then proceeded on appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

Nature of Case: The District Court condemned Antoine Jones of previous drug crimes. The defendant asked for an appeal and then then it headed D.C. Circuit of Appeals which they ended up reversing the condemnation. They stated that the no warrant use of the GPS violated the fourth amendment. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals refused a rehearing en banc. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari (review order of a higher court from previous court decision).

Sarven was the case that brought the scandals to an end it’s the case that put end to the extortion brutality and cruelty in the Arkansas prison system. After thorough investigation this case was brought against Sarsen and the board of corrections. Using the inmate interviews and testimonies from others the inmates had a solid case against the board of corrections there was no denying the evidence gathered. they had proved that not only where inmates being beaten but why they were beaten and to what extent. They proved not only that the inmates where mal nourished and over worked but kept unsanitary but they had proof of what the kitchen look like what they were being fed where they slept and just what jobs they did. They could no longer past these extraordinary measures off as insufficient funds and in adequate works. the Arkansas person system was corrupt and justice Was well over due. The inmates where protected under the eighth amendment which prohibits the government from using excessive fines, excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment. The prison had to be brought up to slandered the prisons boards where required to make a writing report on how they would meet the constitutional violations found by the

Millions of people go to court to fight for something they believe in or disagree with, but don't get their voices heard. The constitution made amendments to ensure fairness and it's not right if we don't have those fairnesses. In Brown v board of education and Plessy v Ferguson they were fighting to have rights and fairness, but Plessy v Ferguson got their rights heard right away and the Brown v board of Education didn't get there voices heard in till many years after they went to court. In the 1890's Plessy got on the wrong train car and decided he didn't want to move. The authorities said that Plessy would have to pay $25 or go to jail for 20 days, so when he refused they put him in jail. This violated the 14th amendment because, its unequal that white children had better things. In 1950-1951 segregation was a big problem even with little kids going to different schools just because of the

Facts: On October 13, 2005, in Lexington, Kentucky police officers set up a sting operation to catch a well-known drug dealer. They watched as the suspect made a sale of crack cocaine to a person and walked off as if this is a normal thing. The suspect was Mr. Hollis King, and he was hiding out in an apartment complex with some of his friends. The police watched as the suspect at hand made a transaction with someone selling those drugs. The officers then radioed out that the suspect was on the move and moving towards the entryway of an apartment building. The Lexington Police entered the apartment

Throughout the United States history, there have been many decisions that could have both made and broken the establishment as we know it. One such case that hinges on that statement would be that of the United States V. Jones. The Government is your friend, if you haven’t done anything wrong then you have nothing to hide. Respondent Jones committed a crime that is a known fact. The police had a warrant and they acted on that warrant, although it had expired which was there own fault, they attached a GPS onto his wife’s car because he was smart when using his own car and his own cell phone. Talking in code and only driving from his house to work in his personal car.

In the United States v. Virginia court case, the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) was the only single sexed school in Virginia. The VMI’s purpose was to train males to become leaders in the future. The District Court knew that women was missing an opportunity for equal education. Virginia wanted to make an institute for women, and they thought it would be equal to the VMI. They would both offer comparable educational benefits. The Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL) couldn’t do much without compromising the school’s adversative method.

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent

In Breed v. Jones, a petition was filed against Jones, a 17 year old, who committed acts of robbery. During a detention hearing Jones was ordered to be detained pending a hearing on the petition. After hearing the testimony from two witnesses and Jones, the juvenile court found that the petition was true. The proceedings were continued for a dispositional hearing, in which the Court indicated that there was no care, treatment, or training program through the juvenile court that would be conducive for Jones. Jones’ counsel orally moved to continue the matter, challenging that Jones was not informed that the hearing was going to be a transfer hearing. The Court declared Jones unfit for treatment as a juvenile, and ordered that he be moved to