Reed Vs Gilbert Case Study

The court’s decision in the case of Scott v. Harris heavily affected police pursuit policy. Harris who was the citizen motorist was driving almost twenty miles over the speed limit when Deputy Scott began a vehicular pursuit. Due to his reckless driving, the officer sought to end the high-speed chase that endangers the lives of innocent bystanders. However, Deputy Scott was untrained in Precision Intervention Technique (PTI), so he interfered with vehicles speed by ramming the back of Harris’ car which caused him to lose control, going off of the road resulting in an accident. During the case the question of whether the deputy used excessive force because his action could constitute deadly force. Harris believed that his Fourth Amendment rights

(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to

　　　　Slavery was at the root of the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott sued his master to obtain freedom for himself and his family. His argument was that he had lived in a territory where slavery was illegal; therefore he should be considered a free man. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1800. Scott and his family were slaves owned by Peter Blow and his family. He moved to St. Louis with them in 1830 and was sold to John Emerson, a military doctor. They went to Illinois and the Wisconsin territory where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Dred Scott married and had two

In the R.A.V v. City of St. Paul case, a white teenager was arrested for burning a cross in the lawn of the only black family in the neighborhood. According to the state, this was in violation of a 1989 city ordinance making it a crime to place on public or public property a burning cross, swastika, or other symbol likely to arouse "anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, and gender." In this case, a higher court decided that R.A.V’s first amendments were violated because the state was punishing expression. The ordinance didn’t simply make burning a cross illegal, but instead made the expression associated with this act illegal, which the court considered a violation of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

Facts: This case consists of Hereford a criminal informant who gets information of narcotic laws to Officer Marsh; a federal narcotic agent with 29 years on the job. Hereford had been feeding Marsh information for close to 6 months and that information was accurate and reliable. In the early days of September 1956, Hereford told Officer Marsh that the defendant James Draper was distributing illegal narcotics throughout Denver. Several days later, Hereford told Marsh that in the days before Draper went to Chicago and set to return with several ounces of heroin. Along with the information given Hereford gave a physical description of Draper, which included his age, weight, race, and clothes that he had

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.

The Dred Scott case came at a very turbulent time in American history. It came

Over five years have passed since high school senior Joseph Frederick was suspended for 10 days by school principal Deborah Morse after refusing her request to take down a 14-foot banner he was displaying at a school-sanctioned event which read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” Born as a seemingly trivial civil lawsuit in which Frederick sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights to free speech, the case made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the long-awaited ruling of Morse v. Frederick has finally been released. In a 5-4 split decision, the court ruled in favor of Morse and upheld the school board’s original ruling that Morse was acting within her rights and did not violate Frederick’s First Amendment rights by taking away his

I hope the people of the United States understand what the Dred Scott decision will mean for the country. In my opinion it will have a negative impact on the county due to issues surrounding slavery. One of the main reasons being it shows where the government stands on the issues of slavery. It has tested the constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Law and the Missouri Compromise and has unjustly over looked our forefathers belief that all men are made equally.

In 1853, Dred Scott filed against his new owner John Stanford. This time he went before the Federal Court. Dred Scott claimed that the case belonged in federal court on the grounds of diversity jurisdiction – Article III of the U.S. Constitution. He argued that since he was a resident of Missouri and john Stanford was a resident of New York the issue of illegal enslavement was not within the jurisdiction of either state. The Court allowed the case but in the end ruled in favor of Stanford and Dred Scott appealed to the US Supreme Court.

In summary on November 12, 1984, Dethorne Graham, a black male suffering from insulin complications as a result of diabetes arrived at a convenience store to buy orange juice to help boost up his blood glucose level. Upon arrival at the convenience store, Dethorne Graham exited the vehicle being driven by his friend William Berry. Graham went inside and observed that the check out line was long. Worried about how long it would take to purchase the orange juice, Graham felt that it would be best to go to a friends house instead. Concurrent to these events, Officer Connor, of the Charlotte North Carolina Police Department was seated in his patrol car nearby. Officer Connor, having no knowledge

Town of Gilbert, the defendant town enacted a sign code which prohibited the display of outdoor signs without a permit anywhere within the Town, but exempted 23 categories of signs from that requirement. At issue in Reed were three of those exemptions; those for “Ideological Sign[s],” “Political Sign[s],” and “Temporary Directional Signs Relating to a Qualifying Event.” The sign code regulated these three types of signs differently. “Ideological Sign[s]” included any “sign communicating a message or ideas for noncommercial

The North Carolina statute satisfies the ample alternative channel prong of the Ward test because it leaves various methods to disseminate and communicate information that is not limited by the statute. A regulation leaves ample alternatives if “adequate substitutes exist for the important medium of speech that has been closed off.”( City of Laduc v. Gilleo 56). In City of Ladue v. Gilleo, an ordinance was passed to prohibit residents from displaying certain signs on their property.(Id. at 45) Gilleo placed a sign that expressed a political message condemning the Persian Gulf war on one of the homes she owns in Ladue,MO.(Id.) After complaint about someone kicking down her sign, Gilleo notified that having the sign was prohibited in the city and sued on the basis that the ordinance violated her first amendment.(Id.

I believe that it´s the same offender in the Parkinson case and the Johnson case, which is making the offender a serial killer because he has killed 3 people and it has been over a period over 30 days. By looking at different serial killer typologies my firm belief is that this offender will fall into the lust serial killer typology. I concluded this by firstly looking if the crimes were act-focused kills or process kills, I concluded it was process kills because the offender had taken the time to abduct both Parkinson and Johnson and didn 't just kill them right away like an act-focused killer would do. With the offender being a process killer he could only be organized as well because process killers cannot be disorganized. The offender would either be a lust killer, power-control killer or a thrill killer. I concluded that the offender in this case would not be a thrill serial killer, since this kind of murderer gets off my seeing his victims suffering, which is the most important factor for this type of offender. In the Parkinson and Johnson murders there were no signs of torture on the victims bodies and therefore I do not believe that this offender would be a thrill serial killer.

“In 2008, police arrested an estimated 2.1 million persons under the age of 18. The majority of these juveniles (67%) were referred to juvenile court jurisdiction. The police used discretion to handle and release a portion (22%) of these youths” (Lopez 2016). That means that 273,000 juveniles were prosecuted and punished as adults, some even receiving life in prison. This begs the question should juveniles, regardless of offense, be tried as adults?