Tinker v. Des Moines 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
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 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.
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.
Case Name: Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1126 (2014) Factual History: In Los Angeles, California during the month of October and year of 2009, Abel Lopez was attacked and robbed by a man with a knife, he later identified as Walter Fernandez. During the confrontation between Lopez and Fernandez, Fernandez
Another important court case, Gibbons v. Ogden, happened in 1824. Ogden controls a ferry business in New York. However, because of the Eerie Canal, Ogden can travel to other states, which would be interstate trade. Gibbons, a person also wanting to create an industry in transportation, decides to sue Ogden. Gibbons wins, and this case creates national supremacy over interstate trade.
Fernandez v. California: Fourth Amendment Upheld? POL 303 August 4, 2013 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
Progressive Era: 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
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
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
The case Simmons v Roper specifically is based on the 8th and 14th Amendments. Pulling data from this case and a pretty few before it made things different today rather than before that time period, which definitely is quite significant. Simmons v. Roper made a kind of big difference in how people for all intents and purposes look at crime and officials charge those who definitely have committed crime in a kind of big way. Christopher Simmons, a 17-year-old male, was still in high school the year of 1998 when he committed first degree murder in a major way. Miss Shirley Crook literally was taken from her home wrapped up in rope and thrown off a bridge, she really was literally found generally dead and Simmons later kind of was discovered as
Landmark Supreme Court Cases Project Part I Judicial Activism- When judges deny legislators or the executive the power to do something unconstitutional. Judicial Restraint- A legal term that describes a type of judicial interpretation that emphasizes the limited nature of the court's power. Judicial restraint asks judges to base their judicial decisions
Landmark Supreme Court Decisions About 32 years ago, in December of 1965, a group of adults and students from Des Moines, Iowa gathered to show their dislike towards American involvement in the Vietnam War. They decided to wear black armbands and fast on December 16 and 31 to express there point. When the principals of the Des Moines School System found out their plans, they decided to suspend anyone who took part in this type of protest. On December 16 - 17 three Tinker siblings
Landmark cases are court cases that were studied because of its historical and legal significance. Important cases such as: Miranda v. Arizona and Mapp v. Ohio are the type of cases which have a long lasting effect on the application or creation of a specific law, often involving the violation of an individual’s rights and liberties. In order to understand how a judicial branch works, how these decisions have affected the law, how past court cases have affected citizen’s everyday life and protected individual rights there is the necessity to study Supreme Court Landmark Cases. Cases such as Miranda v. Arizona and Mapp v. Ohio has provided predictability to our justice system and past decisions have been applied to current cases and issues. The importance of Landmarks cases relays on the American legal system which is a Common Law System. This type of system is the one where the judges base their decisions on previous court rulings in similar cases. Supreme Court decision such as Brown v. Mississippi and Gideon v. Wainwright had provided with the right to an attorney and protected us from police officers attacking us brutally in order to obtain a confession. All these Supreme Court Landmark cases have sculptured criminal procedure as how we currently know it and have the privilege to enjoy. In order to understand how the basis of criminal procedure have been formed there should be a clear understanding of the importance of the Supreme Court Landmark Cases such as Miranda v.
EARLY CASES OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM The following Supreme Court cases provide a useful insight into the growth and development of judicial activism in independent India. In the Privy Purse case Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Union of India the broad question was whether the President rightly exercised his power in de-recognising the