Landmark court cases have a legal and historical significance for the application of the particular laws of liberties and individual rights. The five Supreme Court cases that shape law enforcement profession include the Fernandez v. California, Navarette v. California, United States v. Wurie, Plumhoff v. Rickard, and Riley v. California. As evident, legal cases helped design the law enforcement profession into what it is today.
To begin with, in the Fernandez v. California, the Supreme Court judges resolved the question of whether the law should allow warrantless searches. The case disputed the permission rule that stated that if two tenants have authority over a particular room, one on them can give a police consent in the absence of the
The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizures. The supreme court of Virginia then reversed the call again.
The Merit case of Fernandez v. California is seeking to determine whether the Constitutional rights of Walter Fernandez were violated under the 4th Amendment when law enforcement conducted a search of his residence upon obtaining consent from his girlfriend, who was also a resident, after Fernandez was taken into custody (and had stated his objections to the search while at the scene). In Georgia v. Randolph (2006), in a 5 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court held that when two co-occupants are present and one consents to a search while the other refuses, the search is not constitutional. This paper will provide a statement of the decision, based on current
United States v. Rosario, 962 F.2d 733, 736 (7th Cir. 1992). It would be a situation where it would be “obvious” that the party consenting has the ability to do so. The Second and Eighth Circuits have ruled similarly to the Seventh Circuit with regards to the obvious standard. These circuits have stated that as long as a police officer is reasonable in believing there is apparent authority by a third party, the search is legal. Moore v. Andreno, 505 F.3d 203, 209 (2d Cir. 2007). United States v. Almeida-Perez, 549 F.3d 1162, 1170 (8th Cir. 2008). The courts have ruled this way because an exception to the Fourth Amendment regarding warrantless searches states that “either actual or apparent authority will do.” Rosario, 962 F.2d at 737. Actual or apparent authority can be assessed by looking for an indicating factor of authority. Id. An indicating factor of authority would be something such as a person who opens the door of an apartment referring to it as “his apartment” or indicating that he lives there permanently. The obvious standard needs there to be reasonable belief of authority to be met. Luckily, there was definitely reasonable belief for authority in this
A lot of court cases are historically important and sometimes they the result in changing certain laws. For example, the Brown v. Board of Ed court case ended racial segregation in the U.S., and the Gideon v. Wainwright case required the state to provide low-income defendants with an attorney if they could not afford one. These two cases changed the Federal Constitution against racism and made it possible for all citizens to have the same rights in Untied State, and everyone experiences these changes on a daily basis. Another court case made a change in the Federal Constitution is Tinker v. Des Moines. Tinker v. Des Moines court case took a big part during the Vietnam War because it brought even more attention to the
Analysis: There was much controversy with this case because police officers did enter an apartment with no warrant. Since there were no bystanders or other evidence except the police officers and the tenants involved it was very difficult to come out with a verdict. Of course the police officers stated that there were exigent circumstances occurring before they enter the apartment and the tenants states that there were no exigent
Under the 4th Amendment of the United States, citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. One exception is through consent to the search. Petitioner Fallsbauer will argue that the consent his mother gave was ambiguous, and because his mother’s consent was ambiguous the consent was not valid and therefore the police had a legal duty to clarify the ambiguity. Specifically, the officers needed to clarify the ambiguity of her consent regarding searching in the shoe box where the police officers found the tablets later discovered to be Taz. Petitioner will argue that the case of U.S. v. Whitfield is analogous to and controlling in his case. In Whitfield, the defendant had been accused of theft, and police officers came to search the residence of the defendant. The court ruled that the mother had not told police officers whether she had anything to do in the 29 year old defendant’s bedroom. They had no reason to know and therefore they could not take her consent. The area of the house to be searched was not under her authority. The court said that ownership of the house does not imply common authority. “A landlord-tenant type of arrangement between a
This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.
One important United States Supreme Court case is the Brown vs. Board of Education case.This case was extremely significant because it was the case that ended segregation in public schools. Before this, many, if not most, of the public schools were extremely segregated still from the previous slave years. Typically at a "white school" the education was really good, and at a "black school" it was terrible. The Supreme Court decided to desegregate the schools to allow equal education for all students. This decision made a huge impact on the United States because without this case, schools could still be completely segregated today.
The Supreme Court consolidated two cases where the police gained entry into the defendants’ home without a search warrant and seized evidence found in the house. The rule of law as read out under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment posits that the United States Constitution has prohibited warrantless entry and search of a premise, absent the exigent circumstances, regardless the existence of a probable cause. The courts in Payton held that the Fourth Amendment made it a violation to enter a premise during an arrest absent an arrest warrant and exigent circumstances; a person’s house is a critical point to which the constitutional safeguards should be respected.
The supreme court frequently began using the Tenth Amendment during the progressive era. In various literatures I found of supreme court cases, it is seen that often times state laws that established a maximum of work hours allow and/or to create working conditions. Various legislation that were created were often times declared unconstitutional by the supreme court. Legislation that were intended to help people were ruled unconstitutional because it supposedly actually “harmed” workers by taking away their freedom to work long hours for low wages in such conditions. Certain legal interpretation influenced Justices' reasoning, and they decided that the choice would affect the rights and liberties that the government should
As an example, up until the Arizona v. Gant Supreme Court case in 2009, police officers had the right to search an individual’s vehicle incident to arrest. That is to say a warrantless search of the entire vehicle could be conducted. The Arizona v. Gant case narrowed the scope of that search as justices opined that officers could only search the vehicle if the search itself would provide
Judicial Activism- When judges deny legislators or the executive the power to do something unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Earl Warren accomplished a great deal before finally being appointed as the Chief Justice. He was elected as the Governor of California, and served three consecutive terms of office. In his early years he was the District Attorney in California and also served as the Attorney General of California. In his time as a District Attorney Warren earned himself a reputation for being tough on crime, he soon gained a statewide reputation as a tough, no-nonsense district attorney who fought corruption in government. Chief Justice Earl Warren was appointed by president Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953 after Warren lost to Eisenhower and Richard Nixon in the election. Earl Warren was a right wing republican but ended up being more liberal on the Supreme Court than anyone had every expected. He presided over some very significant cases that will be discussed below. The three that will be discussed, perhaps the most important, are Brown V. Board of Education in 1954, Gideon V. Wainwright in 1963, and Miranda V. Arizona in 1966. Now don’t be misled, Chief Justice Earl Warren did a great deal in his career, and influenced very much, however, his most prominent cases that affected criminal justice and the community are the focus of this essay. These three landmark cases greatly affect the criminal justice community and the general public even today.
The landmark Supreme Court cases of Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas have had a tremendous effect on the struggle for equal rights in America. These marker cases have set the precedent for cases dealing with the issue of civil equality for the last 150 years.
run by school officials, that it could be controlled by them, "so long as their