Quinn V. United States Essay

In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public

The right to be heard by a jury is when the defendant is given the opportunity to have a trial before their peers, friends and neighbors. This is when they can introduce information that will support their claims. While at the same time, prosecutors will bring forward all relevant facts to demonstrate the guilt of the suspect. This is illustrating how the accused has the right to have their case heard by an impartial third party (i.e. the jury). (Sundahl, 2011)

An example of racial profiling that involves both Stop-and-Frisk and DWB is the incident behind Whren v. United States. The incident behind the case involved two black men, Michael Whren and James Lester Brown, in Washington D.C. who were driving a truck through a high drug area. An unmarked police car with two officers pulled up next to the truck that was stopped at a stop sign for an unreasonable amount of time and then sped away at a high speed. The police officers then pulled them over and saw a clear plastic bag. Under the suspicion that it was drugs, they searched the car and ended up finding a substantial amount of drugs. The decision of Whren v. United States says that if a police officer has a reasonable suspicion, he can stop the car for that reason alone. There is no need for a traffic offense because ‘driving suspiciously’ is enough to warrant a stop. While yes, they did see the plastic bag and that was the caused for the search, they stopped them because they were African American men in a high drug area and drove suspiciously. There is no saying that if they were two white men that they would not have been pulled over as well, however, if they were two black men not in a high drug area and drove suspiciously they would have still been more likely to be pulled over than two white men. This shows the underlying problem is not that the law directly discriminates, it’s that the police who enforce and the society who follows it that have biases and stereotypes that

This is an important debate for people accused of a crime because these rights could mean the difference between freedom and imprisonment. The two positions argue whether or not suspects should be read their Miranda Rights. Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration. For example, evidence indicates that these rights could help guilty suspects avoid punishment. In contrast, opposing evidence suggests that they will not. While both sides of the issue have valid points, the claim that suspects should be read their Miranda Rights is the stronger position, the position supported by a preponderance of the evidence cited in the passages. The most convincing and forceful reasons in support of this position are that these rights

In the case Miranda vs. Arizona. This case goes against the 5th and 6th amendments. Miranda says that the police had violated his 5th Amendment right to remain silent and his 6th Amendment right to legal counsel. Miranda addressed the Escobedo rule which states evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court. Also addressed was the Gideon rule which states all felony defendants have the right to attorney. But the police say that Miranda completely voluntarily signed the confession.

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

This means that a ruling to a case should be used again when another similar one is presented. It is clear that the way the police went about getting their evidence was like searching the house and was invading Kyllo’s privacy. An example of this would be the Katz vs. the United States case in 1967. The police put a device that allowed them to listen to his conversations on the outside of a public booth he frequently used. The Supreme court ruled in favor of Katz because “What a person knowingly exposed to the public...is not a subject to the Fourth Amendment. But what he seeks to as private, in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” said by Justice Potter Stewart. The government went too far because the DLK case is similar to this one where it was deemed that they can’t use evidence that was kept private even if it is a “public” setting. The police invaded Kyllo’s privacy in his home, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment and essentially searched his home because they could tell what was going on inside his house. The Supreme court has previously ruled in favor of the petitioner in cases like the DLK case which means the government has gone too far yet

New Jersey v. T.L.O, a supreme court case that took the stands in 1985, involved a fourteen year old freshman in highschool and a New Jersey public high school in which the minor attended. The minor by which public record only shows her by her initials T.L.O, was caught smoking cigarettes with another student in her high school’s bathroom during the school day. This act of smoking in the bathroom was against school policy as it was only seen fit to smoke in the school’s designated smoking areas. This court case was used to argue students rights in searches in public schools.

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney...this is what you hear on all your favorite cop shows. But, where did this saying come from? In 1963 Ernesto Miranda a ninth grade dropout (PBS) was arrested and charged with kidnaping, rape, and armed robbery. The police interrogated him for two hours. During the question Miranda supposedly admitted to all the crimes. The police then used Miranda’s confession to convict him in court. While in prison Miranda appealed his case and eventually brought it to the Supreme Court. The court ruled five to four in favor of Miranda. The Supreme Court was correct in their ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, because the majority opinion correctly argued the fifth and sixth amendments. The dissenting opinion arguments regarding the fifth and sixth amendments were incorrect and in other cases involving due process this amendment was abused. In similar cases the court ruled in favor of the defendant because he was harmed during the interrogation process.

     This case had to do with an Ernest Miranda who raped a Patty McGee*. After extracting a written confession from the rapist about the situation, Miranda’s lawyer argued that it was not valid since the Phoenix Police Department failed to read Miranda his rights, also in violation of the Sixth Amendment which is the right to counsel. Some factors that helped support Miranda’s arguments were that the suspect had requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with a lawyer; the suspect had not been effectively warned about his right to remain silent; and an incriminating statement must have been given by the suspect. The author of the Arizona court’s decision, former U.S. Senator and

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

By a 5-4 margin, the Court voted to overturn Miranda's conviction. Chief Justice Warren declared that the burden is upon the State to demonstrate that “procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination” are followed. The current practice of 'incommunicado' interrogation is that the individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself.

Defendants are known to waive certain constitutional rights for a plea bargain. For instance, the Brady evidence was comprised of exculpatory or impeachment evidence that proved the innocence of the defendant [2]. Under the case of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), the U.S. Supreme Court mandate the prosecutors to inform defendants about the evidence [2]. In 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared that it was unlawful for prosecutors to withhold information on the grounds of the defendant refusal to waive his

Benjamin Whether if I’m facing an inquisitive a police officer or perhaps sitting in a courtroom, I don’t think they shouldn’t have to say something that could lead to a conviction. But it can be tough to put a finger on what, exactly, it is that makes the First Amendment privilege against forced self-incrimination a good

The Fourth Amendment to 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, 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 (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at