Leon Vs Usa Case Study

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

Understanding the difference between state and federal courts is important. First off, we know that this case is a matter of the federal courts for two main reasons; (1) the original offense of manufacturing marijuana is an offense against the laws of the United States, making it a federal crime and (2) by statute the district courts have original jurisdiction to try tort cases involving citizens who suffer damages caused by officers or agents of the federal government. Because agents of the federal government offended Mr. Kyllo’s constitutional right, this was indeed under federal jurisdiction. Therefore, this case is decided using federal substantive law.

During the supreme court case U.S v. Lopez, the United States Federal Government’s argument was that carrying a firearm inside an educational environment would lead to a violent crime. A violent crime ultimately affects the population of a school. Due to this, the federal government believed that the commerce clause should be practiced in this case. The Supreme Court backed the previous decision offered by the Five Court of Appeals. In United States v. Lopez, the U.S Supreme Court stated that Congress actually has the ability to make laws under the Clause, but these powers were limited and could not affect the Lopez case.

Nick Kaplan Mr. Gowaskie Const. History of the US April 22, 2010 United States v. Lopez United States v. Lopez was a landmark case, being the first United States Supreme Court case, since the New Deal, to set limits on Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the United State Constitution. United States v. Lopez dealt with a previous decision made by the Supreme Court called the “Gun-Free Schools Zone Act of 1990,” and whether this act was constitutional. In other words, is Congress given the power by the Constitution to regulate guns in schools under the Commerce Clause?

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

The defendant, Jim through his lawyer, has the right to appeal for another hearing of his case in a supreme court. When a state court decision is not satisfactory to the defendant because of lack of reasonable explanation, the defendant can ask for clarification for the decision made. The search and seizure of illegal drugs in Mr. Jim’s house was by nature illegal. To begin with the officers were acting on an invalid search warrant which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and a police misconduct. The Fourth Amendment was implemented to guard the citizen's privacy rights and restricts the police against unreasonable searches and seizures. For this reason, the drugs seized at Jim’s house should not be used as evidence to convict him. Jim

Mendez vs. Westminster. About 80 years ago, one of the first court-ordered desegregations in California. This case was not your normal black vs white segregation that you hear about all of the time. This court case was about white's vs Mexican Americans. This began in 1931 when a court ordered a school district to stop segregating whites and Mexicans. In 1946, during the Mendez case, the federal court reached the same result. Because this was the first federal court case to desegregate whites and Mexicans, it is an important case to look at. Gonzalo Mendez was only seven years old when he became a defendant in this case. When the Mendez family moved to California their aunt took the kids and their cousins to enroll in school. When they got

Citation: Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1126 (2014). Facts: Abel Lopez was attacked in “Los Angeles in October 2009”. While cashing a check he spoke to a man who was identified as petitioner Walter Fernandez. After being asked a series of questions by Walter Abel was attacked and chased. The reason being is that Abel was in the territory of the “Drifters”, a gang that wasn’t very welcoming to people being in there territory. While running Abel called 911 but Fernandez stopped him by whistling causing four men to appear and attack Lopez as well as stealing any valuables in his possession which consisted of “$400 in cash” as well as a cell phone and wallet. The police arrived and the incident was suspected to have have gang involvement.

In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a guidance policy called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would grant temporary deportation protection to about 4.3 million undocumented immigrants. But in that year, twenty-six states challenged the DAPA guidance, therefore the

In the case of Johnson vs. Texas, Gregory Lee Johnson was brought to court for burning the American Flag outside of the convention center during the Republican National Convention. The incident occurred in Dallas Texas in the year 1984 when Ronald Reagan was President. The report stated that Johnson was protesting against Reagan’s policies in America. Johnson was proved to be a member of a private institution that promoted the communist movement. His protest against Reagan expressed his dissatisfaction. Johnson was arrested and charged for violating a Texas statue fined $2000 dollars for his actions. In response to the fine, Johnson appealed and took his case to the United States Supreme Court.

Our client, Dave Donaldson, allegedly extorted Vincent Valdor for $5,000 via email. Donaldson lives in Kentucky, and Valdor lives in Ohio. The federal statute which Donaldson allegedly violated states one may not, “gain property or money by the use or threat of violence, harm to reputation, or damage to property."

The case of U.S. v. Lopez (1995) was the case of a young man in 12th grade named Alfonso Lopez Jr. who brought a loaded gun to school and was arrested and charged under Texas law. The state charges were later dismissed and federal agents charged him because he violated the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990. This acts states that it is unlawful for people to bring firearms to a place that "the individual knows, or has a reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." He was charged by federal agents because he violated a federal criminal law, however this was also dismissed because it was unconstitutional. This was the big issue surrounding this case. The act was unconstitutional because the Supreme Court said congress went above its constitutional

United States v. Jones 132 S.Ct. 945 (2013) Facts: Antoine Jones (defendant), a nightclub owner in the District of Columbia was suspected for drug trafficking by the FBI and Metropolitan Police Department task force. As a joint task-force investigation, the FBI applied for a warrant that authorized the use of an electronic tacking device on the Jeep Grand Cherokee registered to Jones’s wife. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued the warrant, in which authorized an installation of the device on Jones’s vehicle within in the District of Columbia and and within 10 days of the issuance of the warrant. However, the government did not install the device on the undercarriage of Jones’s vehicle until the eleventh day

Case Brief: United States vs. Jones FACTS: Antoine Jones is an owner of a nightclub in the District of Columbia, and he is suspected of trafficking narcotics. The FBI and Metropolitan Police Department, after using various investigative techniques, obtained a warrant to install an electronic tracking device on the vehicle of

The US Surgical Case 1) Identify audit procedures that, if employed by Ernst & Whinney during the 1981 USSC audit, might have detected the overstatement of the leased and loaned assets account that resulted from the improper accounting for asset retirements.