Factual History: A prisoner asked permission to grow a beard to keep in accordance with his religious beliefs. When denied he asked to compromise and grow it only ½ inch. He was yet again denied by the warden and told to keep in compliance with the rules or face the consequences. His objection to shaving his beard clashed with the Arkansas Department of Correction's grooming policy, which prohibited the inmates from growing facial hair unless they had a skin condition that this policy would affect. Procedural History: The prisoner filed a pro se complaint and claimed that it was preposterous to say someone could hide contraband in a beard, even a ½ inch one. The warden then said how a prisoner would be able to escape and shave to disguise himself
Defendants, Mark and William Schenkly, have not satisfied the elements required to invoke the shopkeeper’s privilege defense. Conduct by the suspect which lead a shopkeeper to believe that the suspect is attempting to steal is enough to establish reasonable cause. In assessing reasonable cause to detain, Arizona courts consider whether appearances are sufficient to justify a shopkeeper’s belief is reasonable. Kon v. Skaggs Drug Center, Inc., 563 P.2d 920, 922 (1977); Gau v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., 901 P.2d 455, 459 (1995). Defendant Mark Schenkly did not see Mr. Flynn take beer from the cooler, nor did he observe that the beer was missing from the cooler. The statute setting forth the requirements for asserting the shopkeeper’s privilege provides that detainment may only take place for the sole purposes of questioning or
1. The case I read about stated that inmates were forced to sleep on the floor due to overcrowding in the jail. Many inmates found this inhumane and not right. It was not the inmates choice to sleep in the floor of their cell but they were being forced to. A defense attorney was hired to look into this case and solve this problem.
Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a official felony, when he broke into a pool room and had thoughts to commit a serious misdemeanor offense. He was not a rich man; therefore he could not afford a lawyer to serve on his defense. He had asked the judge to appoint him one, because according to the sixth amendment, one has the right to an attorney. However the state of Florida would not give him one. With this being said, Gideon was found guilty and sentenced five years in prison. During the five years he was in jail, he took the time to write a letter to the Florida Supreme Court explaining his situation and how he was not appointed an attorney. Due to his commitment, the case was sent to the Supreme Court.
On July 16th, Emerson Jones, an inmate at the Buckeye Juvenile Correctional Institute, engaged and incited in a prison riot between two gangs. During the full-scale riot, Jones fractured his wrist. Now, Plaintiff Emerson Jones is prosecuting the Buckeye Juvenile Correctional Institute, BJCI, for violating his eighth amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. The two elements that will be called into question is whether or not Guard Mendez acted in sadism and maliciousness and whether or not Nurse Robin Rodgers acted recklessly while knowing the substantial risk of harm. However, the preponderance of the evidence and the law clearly proves that BJCI is not guilty of violating
The case that I found was Couch V. Wayne Local School District, on April 2011 Maverick couch wore a t-shirt to school saying “Jesus Is Not a Homophobe”. Just like the Jarrar case the principle made him flip his t-shit inside out so that
The case of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), is very similar in facts and issues to this case. Mr. Edwards was convicted of robbery, burglary, and first degree murder. While being questioned by
Facts: At the time of their original filing in the district court, inmates did not have access to their desired law research facilities. There was only one, severely arguably inadequate, state prison library and no other legal assistance was available.
Religious Freedom in prison cannot be taken away to any inmate as under Federal Law it states everyone can exercise his or her religion. Congress has passed two statutes that increase the protection of inmates’ First Amendment rights. These are the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Both statutes provide that government officials cannot execute a considerable problem on inmates’ religious rights unless they show their rule serves a compelling government interest in the least preventive way. Inmates have enjoyed the success of religion dietary practice where an inmate has the right to diet in accordance to their religious beliefs. Also, prisoners can avoid foods that are not allowed to be eaten per such belief. So, for some inmates who practice different believes, the court has ordered that certain diets be made available to inmates. This way they are not forced what they are not allowed to eat in their countries.
This case, Bowers v. Hardwick, originated when Michael Hardwick was targeted by a policer officer for harassment in Georgia. A houseguest of Hardwick's let the officer into his home, where Hardwick was found engaging in oral sex with his partner, who was another male. Michael Hardwick was arrested and charged of sodomy. After charges were later dropped, Hardwick brought his case to the Supreme Court to have the sodomy law declared unconstitutional.
Jimmy Maddox was convicted of rape in a Georgia state court and sentenced to life imprisonment. Having unsuccessfully pursued his direct appeal and the state post-conviction remedy, Maddox filed a federal habeas corpus petition alleging prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory evidence in violation of the
The novel “Timeline” begins with a doctor, Joe Traub, an employee of a company called ITC. Mysteriously the company is very far away from where Traub’s body was found. Bakers, young couple brought Traub to a local hospital, where Traub dies of cardiac arrest. The hospital couldn’t find his identities, even after an MRI scans, Traub’s blood veins didn’t match each other. ITC prevent any other evidence about his death coming through public.
The Furman v. Georgia case has set a precedent on how the courts deal with the disputable issue that is capital punishment because it was the first time the Supreme Court addressed the problem. Both racism and the morality of the death penalty have been relatively controversial issues in the United States for several years. The Furman v. Georgia case conjoined both matters. The case declared that if capital punishment were to be used, it was going to be used for all the right reasons, not due to any prejudices or discrimination by reason of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Additionally, the case placed a moratorium on the death penalty because it was argued that the application of Furman’s sentencing would be an example of “cruel and unusual
Each day in America, some of the most innovative minds are kept sealed in a box up to twenty-three hours a day, receiving only the minimum of basic human needs. Inmates have become some of the most notoriously ingenious visionaries in the modern world. From smuggling components into a facility to creating weapons made from paper, these individuals are constantly finding new ways to exploit the system to their benefit. Though there is seemingly an infinite amount of different types of contraband, the most commonplace items seized are drugs, tattooing equipment, electronics, and weapons. Contraband, as defined by US Legal, refers to property that is illegal to possess or transport. The Arizona Revised Statues define the
While there are specificities of the case that can help determine the individualized outcome of this particular case, the foundations of the legal problems in the case can be expanded to greater problems of religious definition in the United States. As shown through The Impossibility of Religious Freedom, religious theory is vital to the continuation of religious freedom protections, for better or worse, in the United States. The case that is highlighted by Sullivan revolves around the ability for citizens to use religious items around burial sites that extend beyond the city of Boca Raton’s regulatory codes. When some of these religious items around the burial sites were not permitted by the city, a group of citizens sued the city on the grounds that the city was preventing actions protected by the religious freedom clauses of the US Constitution. This case, like many others involving religious freedom decisions, required a real definition of religion. Religious theory was imperative to the outcome of this case. Sullivan writes, “If religion was whatever anyone said it was, the statute was unworkable and [Judge Ryskamp] did not feel it was his place to simply dismiss an act of the Florida legislature as nonsense. Religion therefore had to be measured and bounded by an expert test…”(Sullivan 105). These tests were determined by various religious scholars, including Sullivan, that testified in this case. Religious theory,
Whether there is a reasonable relationship between a restriction and a legitimate penological interest is determined through: 1) what is the connection between the restriction and the legitimate interest of the institution? 2) What other alternatives exist for the inmate to