Nicholson V. Scoppetta (CPS)

“I just knew the phone would ring some day and Joshua would be dead,” stated social worker Ann Kemmeter regarding Joshua DeShaney and the ongoing abuse he endured from his father. Joshua’s father brutally and repeatedly abused his four-year-old son Joshua (Wichenbach). The State of Wisconsin was aware of this abuse, but still did nothing to intervene and stop the mistreatment of this child (Wichenbach). The State’s inaction led to the Supreme Court case DeShaney v. Winnebago Department of Social Services, in which Joshua’s mother, Melody, sued the Winnebago Department of Social Services claiming, “the social worker deprived Joshua of his liberty without due process of law” (Alexander). In order to fully understand the DeShaney case, one must conduct thorough background research, delve into the court case itself, and analyze the impact the case has yet today.

On the date of February 4th, 1965, believing that the Petitioner had been using public pay phones to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began their surveillance into the life of the Petitioner, Charles Katz. Fifteen days later on February 19th, 1965 FBI agents working the case against the Petitioner had gained access to a phone booth within a set of phone booths that the petitioner frequented on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, and summarily recorded the petitioner’s side of conversations he was having on the phone within a booth nearby. This surveillance lasted until the 25th (excluding February 22, as no evidence was obtained due to technical difficulties) the date of the petitioner’s arrest, which took place immediately after he exited the same set of phone booths. In this case there are two major constitutional questions which need to be addressed: (1) whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether the search warrant used by the FBI officers in this case violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution in that the warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; (b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search

The Illinois trial court denied motion to suppress, finding the gun was recovered during a lawful stop and frisk. The Illinois Appellate Court reversed Wardlow 's conviction, concluding that the gun should have been suppressed because Officer Nolan did not have reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigative stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968). 287 Ill. App. 3d 367, 678 N. E. 2d 65 (1997). The Illinois Supreme Court agreed. 183 Ill. 2d 306, 701 N. E. 2d 484 (1998). While rejecting the Appellate Court 's conclusion

In addition to the areas of ASFA needing improvement included in the evaluation of the law by CSSP, there are many quality recommendations provided to help improve ASFA. While ASFA should remain intact, the recommendations by CSSP that would be most helpful include: focusing on community-based prevention and intervention services to families, increased efforts and supports for reunification, implementing specialized treatment for families dealing with substance abuse, mental illness, or incarceration, reassessing ASFA timelines regarding the termination of parental rights and support for parents to progress, analyzing the child welfare system regarding practices for equality towards the specialized needs of diverse families and children, and committing to widely available and effective post-permanency supports for children (CSSP, 2009).

Many of these incarcerated men and women play various roles in their communities. They are parents, siblings, sons, and daughters and have family members who depend upon them for social and economic support. The incarceration of a parent has a particularly destabilizing role in a child’s life, oftentimes leaving the child in the care of a single parent, relative, or foster home (Levy-Pounds, 2006). Parental incarceration is considered an Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE), a designation for certain

The Supreme Court is not infallible. At the same time, the Supreme Court can do no wrong. Here is the social paradox that is the Supreme Court. They are supposed to declare an act constitutional or not, but that is fundamentally flawed based on the cultural atmosphere at the time. Each justice is a victim of society, just as every person in the United States and the world is, therefore they are subject to the whims of their culture and how they grew up, leading to some less than optimal results. The Supreme Court is intended to work as a moral compass for the nation, deciding what is good and bad, but society can be fundamentally flawed, as illustrated by many cases brought to the Supreme Court. The case of Dred Scott v. Sandford is a clear

Shortly after the establishment of the Kansas Nebraska Act, there was a slight moment of opportunity for the nation to end the long-lasting controversial issue of slavery once and for all, the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, but again, the division of the two regions grew fonder. In the 1830s, Dred Scott, a Missouri slave accompanied his slave owners to several different territories, including Wisconsin and Illinois, two slave free states at the time. After Dred Scott’s slave owner died, he attempted to sue for his freedom, being it he had stepped on “free man” soil. Although he had to return back to Missouri, the second he walked onto a free state territory he no longer identified himself as a slave. However, the ruling in the end only strengthened

Facts: August 7, 1999, a car occupied by three men, Donte Partlow (driver and owner of vehicle) accused Pringle (front seat passenger), and Otis Smith riding in the back seat, were ultimately pulled over by a police officer for driving over the speed limit. Upon the officer approaching the vehicle, he asked to see Partlow’s license and registration, and as the defendant opened his glovebox, a fairly large sum of money was exposed in the amount of $763. The officer then returned to his patrol car to check Parlow’s license to ensure he had no warrants of anything outstanding, Partlow came out clear, so he issued Partlow a verbal warning. Upon arrival of the second officer he asked if they minded he search the vehicle, Partlow had no issues and agreed to the search. The police not only found the $763 in the glove compartment but also five glassine Baggies of cocaine stashed behind the backseat armrest. The officers questioned the men as to who the cash and drugs belong too, none of them took ownership, the officers advised them that if no one claim the drugs and cash as theirs, they all would be arrested and charged. So, all three were arrested and taken to jail. Later on, in the morning Pringle decided he would waived his Miranda rights, then made a full verbal and written admission that the cash and drugs were his

The Facts: A judge out of a New York Family court found 12-year old Winship (Defendant) had committed an act of stealing money from a pocketbook in a locker that if it had been committed by an adult it would have been a crime. But due to it being a 12-year old, the judge relying on a preponderance of the evidence, the standard of proof required by the New York Family Court Act, led the way of giving good reason that justified the fact that a young person did the crime that he was charged with. Winship had to dealt with a finding like this had to be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision was supported by the New York Court of Appeals and sustained the constitutional, but Winship was granted a review by the United States Supreme Court.

Murphy was on probation after been found guilty of a sex related charge that took place in 1980. Murphy was obligated by the court to enroll in treatment and be honest with his probation officer when they do conduct their scheduled meetings once a month. When Murphy’s probation officer ask him questions Murphy revealed of his past act of rape and murder, that took place in 1974. The offender Murphy claims that his 5th amendment, which allows a person to not incriminate oneself, was violated when his probation officer asked Murphy a series of questions.

The Supreme Court does a great deal for our nation today. Everyday they work on ongoing cases, making some very difficult decisions. One of these cases is the case of Timothy Carpenter, who believes it was unconstitutional when the FBI searched his cell phone records without a warrant.

The safety of the youth in his incarceration depends on factors that may go way back to family and may be less related to (although supplementary to) institutional conditions as the Keeping Kids Safe (KKS) (2009) research study of Judy Finlay showed.

Review Board for Youth, an advisory panel on the child welfare established by the Maryland

Unfortunately, in a society dominated by material wealth and status, young individuals often make drastic errors in judgment. Many young individuals, attempting to mimic their role models, pursue endeavors that are as unprofitable as there are detrimental. Activities such as theft, assault, burglary, and vandalism are all common mistakes that young individuals in society make. The reasons for such activity are as varied as they are bizarre. However, society must account for these infringements on individual rights with proper correctional initiatives. One of these initiatives, geared primarily towards young adults, is centered on juvenile court. Juvenile court provides services and support to youth between the ages of 10 and 17. The primary goal of this supervision is to monitor and assist children in hopes of returning these individuals back to society in a productive manner. The Juvenile Court Services unit of Kenosha Wisconsin is no different in this regard as it attempts to aid its youth by preventing destructive behavior from occurring (Dishion, 1999).

Facts: The Petitioner Charles Katz used a public phone booth in order to place phone calls to transmit and receive gambling information and wagers across multiple state lines, which is a violation of federal law. After extended FBI surveillance of the petitioner for illegal gambling activities, a listening device was placed on the outside of the public telephone booth and recorded the petitioner’s side of the phone conversations. The recordings were submitted into evidence despite the petitioner objecting, citing fourth amendment violations, which assisted in his conviction. The conviction was brought against the Ninth Circuit of Appeals, and the conviction was affirmed deeming the external listening