Kentucky v. King case brief Essay

The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. The Kent case helped lead the way in the development of a list of eight criteria and principles. This creation of these criteria and principle has helped protect the offender and public for more than forty-five years. Which as a reason has forever changed the process of waving a juvenile into the adult system (Find Law, 2014).

The Court of Appeals reversed and filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: "(1) apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; (2) deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a

Facts: Kyle John Kelbel was convicted of first-degree murder, past pattern of child abuse, in violation of Minnesota state statute section 609.185(5) and second-degree murder, in violation of Minnesota statute 609.19, subdivision 2(1). He was sentenced to life in prison for the death of Kailyn Marie Montgomery. Kelbel appealed, and argued that the district court failed to instruct the jury that it must find that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the acts that constituted the past pattern of child abuse and he also argued that the evidence against him was insufficient to prove past pattern of child abuse

In many ways, the opinion in this case represents a final step in the creation of

The Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allen (609 S.E.2d 4, Va. 2005) was a fascinating case. The case focused on two expert witness testifying for the state and the other for the defendant, and if they acted and behaved ethically during the proceedings. Successive information will be addressed to prove the thought process behind my opinion given in this case. The APA code of ethics and specialty guidelines will be used to support my reasoning. Furthermore, they will serve as a baseline of boundaries within the profession to determine the expert witness’ influences to the case as well as their behavior within the profession.

In the court case United States v. Ludwig the police took a narcotics dog through a parking lot in hopes that he would find the scent of drugs (www.loompanatics.com). Since a motorized vehicle has the ability to be driven far away and evidence can be removed, police believe that under certain circumstances they can search a car without a warrant. A dog alerted the cops by letting them know he smelled the scent of narcotics. They asked the suspect if they can search his truck. The suspect didn’t give them consent he was against the search but they still took the keys from him to search the truck. They found drugs in his trunk and a couple of large bags of marijuana. The police didn’t have a warrant nor did they have permission from the suspect to search his truck. The Supreme Court first ruled that it was unlawful to search his car without a warrant and no legit reasoning for the search. Then the court ruled that it was lawful because the officers said that the dog alerting them, were their reasoning for a warrantless search. The cops also stated in court that the reason they took the suspect’s keys is because if they have didn’t, there was a possibility that he could drive off and get rid off the drugs which would be their loss of evidence. This case shows how citizens have certain rights when it comes to their vehicles but they can still be ‘violated” in a sense.

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

Facts:          On October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Hymon and Wright were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” When the police arrived at the scene, a neighbor gestured to the house where she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house. While one of the officer radioed that they were on the scene, the other officer went to the rear of the house hearing a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The suspect, Edward Garner stopped at a 6-feet-high fence at the edge of the yard and proceeded to climb the fence as the police officer called out “police, halt.” The police officer figured that if Garner made it over

If I had been a justice on the Supreme Court, I would have to say that the major problem with this case is that Albert Leon should not use the fourth amendment as a way to help him in this particular case because I feel that the police officers did have enough evidence and support to issue a search warrant. The police officers were just trying to do their job and used a search warrant to Albert Leon’s house, which they found a large amount of illegal drugs. I would have to say that would have been enough evidence for me to see that Leon should go to jail and be punished for even having illegal drugs in his possession. The police officers had done more investigation and found out that Leon has been arrested before in 1980. Leon’s lawyer felt

Duane Buck, a death row inmate, has served more than twenty one years for murdering his ex-girlfriend Debra Gardner and Kenneth Butler. He accused Kenneth for sleeping with Debra and also shot his stepsister in the chest, who survived. After shooting Kenneth, Gardner ran to the street and was chased until she was gunned down while her children watched. Even though the crime should be punished, bucks attorneys argue Mr. Buck was denied a fair trial. Walter Quijano, a psychologist, gave his testimony during the trial stating that Buck was more likely to be a future danger because of his racial color. What surprises everyone is that Buck’s defense lawyer was the one who called Quijano and evoke the testimony. Even though the racial testimony had no place in the trial it still didn’t justify whether they should throw out the death sentence. No racial testimony appeared to be in his early appeals due to his counsel’s impotence for introducing it. Still it was very believable because this was not the first case Quijano made a similar testimony that had violated an inmate’s constitutional rights. Bucks lawyers tried to use this information to fight for Buck but they were not successful because the courts ruled Buck had waited too long to raise the issue. The argument here is if Buck is

On June 25, 2015 the Supreme Court ruled to maintain health law subsidies. The petitioners disputed the legitimacy of premium and cost sharing subsidies for all low- and middle-income citizens. However, the purchasing of health insurance policies in 34 states where the federal government instead of the state is operating an insurance marketplace established through the Affordable Care Act system (Smith, 2015).

The requirements of a police officer obtaining an impartial Court ordered search warrant have become a little blurred. It will be easier for the police to decide not to obtain a search warrant when they themselves deem that they have probable cause to believe drugs may be in a home. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that when the police think they smell marijuana coupled with the sounds of what they believe could be the destruction of evidence, is reason enough for them to gain forced entry into a home without a search warrant while claiming probable cause and exigent circumstances.

Under this case the Fourth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution prohibits the police from performing unreasonable or unwarranted searches of people’s properties. With this we understand

The Fourth Amendment is set to protect against unreasonable searches. (Hall, 2015). I believe as current police officer and especially in today's society it is imperative that we understand the laws that we are trusted to enforce. The reason there are laws set in place is because previously someone has had their civil rights violated. That is why now we have so many case laws to reference. Obviously with times come changes. As of now and what I have learned in the academy there are certain exceptions to enter someones residence without a warrant. They are exigent circumstance, in another words if there could be serious bodily injury or death then we have our due diligence as police officers to enter the residence. If we are pursuit of an individual

Within our state, Kentucky, we have one of the most competitive band organizations in the united states. Bands from all over Kentucky work for months to perfect a thirteen minute show that showcases musical talent, theater performance, and dedication. Band kids get worked to the bone, often practicing over 15 hours a week, which equates to a total of over 300 hours of practice time in a season. Kids sacrifice social time, school work, and jobs to perfect this show that requires effort from everyone. All of this hard work can be undone in the blink of an eye, by one judge. Judging in kentucky is very poor and needs to be addressed.