Legal 100 Quiz 2 Essay

This letter is to inform you, that your tax appeal hearing has been scheduled for March 6, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. The hearing will be held at the County Office building located at 211 Race Road. The court room is located on the 5th floor.

* The admissibility of a defendant’s statements if such statements were made while the defendant was held in police custody or deprived of freedom of movement in a significant way;

They cited the Vernonia School District 47J v. Action case , where the Supreme Court ruled that suspicionless drug testing of student athletes was constitutional , the federal district court supported the policy, granting the board’s motion for summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals , however, they agreed in favour of Earls and James , deciding that the policy did violate the Fourth Amendment . They found that schools “must demonstrate that there is some identifiable drug abuse problem among a reasonable number of those subject to the testing , such that testing a group of students will actually solve their drug problem.” The Tenth Circuit agreed that the school district had failed to meet this requirement. Then the Court agreed that the policy should be kept confidential . Then the Court came to the agreement that the student’s privacy was not important

4. Why does the Court conclude that the measures used to implement the county’s affirmative action plan do not unduly burden white males such as Johnson?

In a high school in New Jersey, a teacher found two girls smoking in the bathroom and alerted the principal. One of the girls confessed to smoking but the other, T.L.O., didn’t confess. The principal searched T.L.O’s purse and found marijuana which clarified she was selling as well as smoking. T.L.O. was taken to the police and confessed to her actions. Since she confessed and had evidence in her purse of the crimes she’d committed, New Jersey charged her. In a court for juveniles, T.L.O. claimed that her Fourth Amendment rights, not allowing unreasonable searches and seizures, were violated. The court believed the school, and T.L.O. then went to the New Jersey Supreme Court with her case, which agreed that it was an unreasonable search and

     You have asked me to determine whether our client Diana Lewis committed unauthorized practice of law by providing her services. I have done research on statutes and cases. This memorandum will address the issue of this case, California Bar’s claim, and Ms. Lewis’s possible defense.

in 2002 the Supreme Court took up the issue of drug testing in the case of Board of Education of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, and the ruling was that the the students’ privacy was not violated by

Reasoning: The court wanted the school to show individual reasoning to determine if they have probable cause to require a drug testing of the student. The school district only performed public surveyed which displayed students were using drugs, however, they were mainly identified in the high school students. Of the students that submitted the drug testing only 11 were found to have some type use of drug. The school board members whom voted for the random drug testing, did not consent their own children to this

A concurring opinion was delivered by Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., and he stated that he had doubted that a search without a warrant after an arrest to only protect the officer, or even to protect evidence was not enough to substantiate this act without a warrant. He further explained that in relation to privacy standards, the majority was correct in their

Trial by jury consist of five major parts. Part one a jury should consist of twelve persons with a verdict being unanimous. A waiver of a trial by jury, is required to be tried by jury unless the jury trial is waived by the prosecutor. But, the court should not accept a waiver unless the defendant is being advised by the court to trial by jury. However, a defendant may not withdraw a voluntary and knowing wavier as a matter of right. But, the court has its discretion or a defendant may withdraw a wavier of jury trial as a matter of right; if there was a change in the trial. Before any verdict, the parties and approval of the court determine the jury should consist of all members to make a full jury. The stipulation should be clear as to the number of concurring jurors required for the verdict to be valid. In some cases, a change of venue or continuance, the following standards govern the disposition of a motion in a criminal case for example, based on a threatened interference of having a fair trial. "One, Except as federal or state constitutional or statutory provisions otherwise require, a change of venue or continuance may be granted on motion of either the prosecution or the defense. Two, A motion for change of venue or continuance should be granted whenever there is a substantial likelihood that, in the absence of such relief, a fair trial by an impartial jury cannot be had. A showing of actual prejudice should not be required.

First, the reasonable clause. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.”(book.p86) Second, the warrant clause. “...and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”(book.p86) The reasonable clause protects people’s rights against unreasonable search and seizure, while the warrant clause guarantees that the only searches and seizures based on warrants and probable cause are reasonable. One type of search and seizure is based on probable cause and warrants, as for the other, it has to pass the reasonable test. The government has to prove the balancing and objective basis elements of the reasonable test whenever they have invaded a person’s privacy rights. In the balancing element, the search or seizure must outweigh the privacy rights of the people. For the objective basis element, there must be enough circumstances and facts to back up their act of seizure or search. Although officers believe it is reasonable for them to violate a person’s Fourth Amendment rights, their decisions are not final. It continues to the courts and from here the courts decide if it was reasonable through case-by-case evaluation. Was there reasonable suspicion? was there probable cause? and

I would want to share with the father that I cannot disclose any information that his son is sharing with me. By sharing what is said in our sessions, I am breaking their son’s trust. If the son were to find out that I was sharing the information he was telling me, then he would probably not want to return to receive the help that he was getting. It would be best if the father did not know what was being said about him for their father and son relationship, and if the son were to ever feel comfortable telling his father what he tells me, then I can. However, in order to be fair, I should still consult local statutes, regulations, and officials to better determine whether or not sharing that information would be necessary and if it is permitted to share that information without consent, being the child is a minor. If this case were like case 2.25 and the father claimed the lawyer wanted to see the social worker’s notes, I would directly talk to the lawyer to see if this was true. From my personal standpoint, unless the

Tina and Rich were having a massive neighborhood feud.  Rich set his rottweiler loose and it promptly ran across Tina's lawn and swallowed Tina's poodle whole. In retaliation, Tina had a friend from the sanitation department dump two tons of raw sewage onto Rich's front lawn. Now imagine that Tina wants to get a restraining order prohibiting Rich from

Although searches may be executed for the right cause, they may not be constitutional. The first ten amendments made to the Constitution were the Bill of Rights. These amendments were added so that all the states could ratify the Constitution and so citizens would have protections from the government. Of these ten amendments, was the Fourth Amendment. This amendment called for the protection of a person’s rights regarding security of themselves and their property. In court cases, courts are able to use their power of judicial review to interpret the Constitution and laws. They do this to assure that the Constitution and federal laws are being followed correctly. The interpretations made may not always be true to the text or maybe even just a part of it. In regards to the Fourth Amendment made to the Constitution, the Supreme Court both does and does not interpret the amendment accurately. They do so accurately in the Mapp v. Ohio case and inaccurately in the Wolf v. Colorado case.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”