Michigan Supreme Court Case Analysis

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

Introduction Of Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) is a court case heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case dealt with the constitutionality of the search of a public school student after she had gotten caught smoking in a public school bathroom. The search provided evidence of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and the intent of sale of drugs. The student fought the charges, stating that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

III. Statement of Facts: Two Philadelphia officers observed Harry Mimms driving a car with an expired plate. They stopped the vehicle to issue a traffic ticket. One of the officers approached Mimms and asked him to step out of the car and produce his license and registration. Mimms alighted, whereupon the officer noticed a bulge under his jacket. Thinking the bulge might be a weapon, the officer frisked Mimms and discovered a loaded .38-caliber revolver. The other occupant was also carrying a gun. Mimms was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon and for unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license and convicted. Following a denial of a motion to suppress in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Mimms was convicted. The conviction was affirmed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania but the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

Board of County Commissioners of Brevard V. Snyder set a precedent since the Court concluded the comprehensive plan, provides for future land use through gradual and ordered growth, and it is not a literal guide. Thus, Local governments have the discretion to decide that certain land uses should be denied, even if they comply with comprehensive plan guidelines.

This assignment is meant to explore the landmark Supreme Court decision Mapp v. Ohio. It is the purpose of the essay to examine the facts of the controversy, the arguments offered by the petitioner, and discuss as well the Supreme Court's ruling and its possible impact on precedent. The analysis will conclude with my commentary and opinion in regard to the Mapp decision.

In 1980, a precedent was set in a Michigan court case involving a man named Charles Toussaint who was suing his employer, BlueCross Blue Shield, for wrongful termination based on the guidelines set in the employee manual (Alfred and Bertsche 33). The manual stated that employees would only be terminated for just cause, and the court decided that Blue Cross had violated the agreements in the employee manual (34). The court also ruled that even with Blue Cross’s efforts to provide a document that “issued non-binding guidelines” the employee manual was a contract and Toussiant was wrongfully terminated (34). After the precedent set by this case many employers and employees for that matter were reviewing their employee manuals for the type of

The Supreme Court is the highest level of the federal court system. It consists of nine justices, including a chief justice and eight associate justices. Very rarely do cases originate on the level of the Supreme Court. The judges and justices that preside over the courts of the United States determine the constitutionality of laws and legislation.

The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that a violation of the “knock-and-announce” rule does not require the courts to suppress any evidence found in a search when officers were pursuant to a valid warrant.

Terry v. Ohio was a pivotal case for the Fourth Amendment and for the citizens of the United States of America. As referenced by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, in nineteen sixty three an off duty detective in Cleveland, Ohio stopped and frisked two African American men and one white man based on a ‘reasonable suspicion that the men were about to commit a crime’ (ACLUOhio, 2014). The ruling of this case has set in motion the gross abuse of stop and frisks in minority communities and among minority races in the twenty-first century; ultimately racial profiling in a post-racial era.

The Mapps v. Ohio Supreme Court case was issued to protect the American’s right of the Fourth Amendment which protects us from unreasonable searches and seizure. It all started on May 23. 1957 in Cleveland, Ohio. Three Cleveland police officers appeared at the appellant’s residence because they believed that a suspect that was wanted for questioning was believed to be hiding out at that particular residence. They believed the suspect had a connection to the recent bombing that happened, also they believe that there was a large amount of paraphernalia hidden at the house. Miss Delraee Mapp and her daughter lived on the second floor of the two story home. After the cops arrived at her house, they knocked down the door and demanded entrance to her house. Miss Mapp then called her lawyer and would not let the cops in

To the everyday US citizen the United States Supreme Court is a nonexistent entity that is not often heard from or seen unless it reaches a decision on a controversial case. Mapp v. Ohio was one of the controversial cases that the Supreme Court made a decision on in 1961. What were the facts of the case? What constitutional issues are in question? What did the court decide, and what were there reasoning of the justices? What is the significance of the case?

In Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, Scott Ewing sued the University of Michigan after he was dismissed from their medical program. The case took nearly three years to settle, eventually coming before the United States Supreme Court. In the end, the court ruled in favor of the university after much evidence was used including marketing used by the university pertaining to its medical program, pamphlets, and other policies of the institution (Kaplin and Lee, 2013). The case arose upon Ewing failing the university’s mandatory medical exam, and as a result, he was dismissed from the university’s medical program before he could complete his final two years. Upon his dismissal, Ewing filed a complaint against the Regents of the University of Michigan, “asserting a right to retake the NBME Part I test on three separate theories, two predicated on state law and one based on federal law” (FindLaw's United States Supreme Court, 2016).).

During the 1960s, numerous court cases were heard in the Supreme Court regarding individual liberties. The Mapp v. Ohio (1961) decision reflected American history as the decision took place during the Warren Court revolution. The socially sympathetic Chief Justice Earl Warren played a monumental role during the Civil Rights era. National sentiment towards the plights of African-Americans and individual rights dominated the country. The Four Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...” (U.S. Constitution). In other words, the belongings of a person, house, papers, +effects (possessions) are

Appellant contends that the district court erred in convicting her under the malicious-punishment statue as well as in ruling that the statute does not require proof of bodily harm. Accordingly, if proof of bodily harm is not required for conviction of malicious punishment, the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

The Supreme Court has nine judges, which serve. These judges assess cases. These Justices hold their terms for life, "during good behavior" under Article III. The current Supreme Court Justices are Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975. Ronald Regan appointed Justice Sandra Day O'Conner to her term in 1981. Justice Antonia Scalia was appointed by Ronald Regan in 1986. Another Justice appointed by Ronald Regan is Anthony Kennedy in 1988. George Bush appointed Justice David Souter in 1990. Justice Clarence Thomas was appointed by George Bush in 1991. Bill Clinton appointed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993. Bill Clinton also appointed Justice Stephen Breyer in 1994. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is Chief Justice William Rehnquist who was appointed Justice by President Richard Nixon in 1972 and earned his appointment to being Chief Justice by Ronald Regan in 1986.