Shelby County V. Holde Case Study

The Police of Harris County was informed of a weapons disturbance in a private residency. The officers found two individuals of the same sex engaging in sexual, (sodomy), behavior. However, the way the police officers enter the premises, was not at all questioned.

When a person takes steps toward the commission of a crime and has a specific intent to commit the crime, but for unforeseen reasons is unable to complete the crime the person has committed the crime of Attempt (Jirard, 2009). In the case of the State of Indiana versus Donald J. Haines, emergency personnel including two police officers [Dennis and Hayworth] along with emergency medical technicians [Garvey and Robinson] responded to Mr. Haines’s apartment for a report of a possible suicide that just occurred. When officers Dennis and Hayworth arrived at Haines’s apartment they discovered him lying face down in a pool of blood. Officer Dennis noticed that both of Haines’s wrists were cut and were bleeding. When Haines heard the paramedics he stood up, and began screaming at Dennis that he has AIDS and that he should be left to die. Dennis advised Haines that he was there to help him, and Haines told Dennis that he wanted to fuck him so that he could give him AIDS. Haines than told Dennis that he was going to utilize his wounds to spray blood on him, and began to jerk back and forth causing his infected blood to get into Dennis’ mouth and eyes. Haines told Dennis that he could not deal with having AIDS, but that he was going to make him deal with it.

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

The significance of Lorena Week’s sex discrimination case was that women can use the legal system to achieve for equality. Week’s case led the National Origination for Women to challenge discriminatory laws. Lorena weeks was a single mother of three children living in Wadley, Georgia. She worked as a telephone operator for many years at the Southern Bell Company. As a single mother, Weeks struggled to provide for her family on her low wages. When the position of Switchman opened, Weeks applied for the position. The switchman job had higher wages and since weeks had been with the company for many years she had seniority rights for the position. When Weeks confronted the company, they said the position was reserved for men and didn’t consider

In the Edwards v. South Carolina case a group of african-american protesters organised a peaceful march to the South Carolina State House and were confronted by a group of police who arrested the protesters for “breach of the peace” after they refused to disperse, and sang patriotic songs. The supreme court decided in favor of the protesters and said that the arrests violated the protesters First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent

Woodrow Wilson, Carrie Chapman Catt, and Susan B. Anthony share a common purpose in their addresses advocating women’s suffrage.Wilson’s Address to the Senate on the Nineteenth Amendment expresses the opinion he holds about the lack of control over women being able to vote; he prioritizes the use of logos to create an argument consisting of present fact and his own belief of how the rest of the world will see them as a nation if they do not ratify the Nineteenth Amendment. Catt’s The Crisis analyzes her present issue of the acknowledgement of women’s suffrage. Catt explains that through the acknowledgement of women’s suffrage, women have been given more freedom, yet not the same equality as men. Catt wants more than just exceptions to social rules, she wants people to understand that a woman is not only an imperative cog in the societal machine, but equality should never be a crisis again. Susan B. Anthony wastes no time getting to the point in On Women’s Right to Vote; she instantly begins her speech with a strong denial of allegations thrown her way and moves right in to speak about the government basing a law off the sex of a person and how the government is not treated as a democracy. Through each of these addresses Wilson, Catt, and Anthony are divided by their point of view and united by their cause, yet only Carrie Chapman Catt’s address holds the most effective reasoning.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting discrimination. With the condition to receive preclearance stated in section 5 of the Act from the Department of Justice before making any changes affecting the voting process, also came four other prohibitions. The prohibition of literacy test or other similar test or devices as a prerequisite to voter registration is one prevention. The requirement of jurisdictions with significant language minority populations to provide non-English ballots and oral voting instructions is another. Third is the prohibition of vote dilution, which is the remapping of districts to suppress the minority vote. The final provision was one of the most controversial of the Act. It established the federal oversight

The right to a speedy trial is considered an essential part of the due process applicable against the states because of the decision in the case of Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) and ultimately the inclusion of it within the fourteenth amendment, that was granted by the doctrine of selective incorporation. In this particular case, the defendant Klopfer appealed to the supreme court because his trial had been postponed to be brought up again in the future when desired. Klopfer claimed that the right to a speedy trial, granted by the Sixth Amendment, should be pertinent to a state’s criminal prosecution due to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Ingram, 2009). The case was examined by the supreme court who ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a crucial basic right, just as the other rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, that has been around for a very long time (Steinberg, 1975).

The United States Supreme Court consists of eight associate justices and one chief justice who are petitioned more than 5,000 times a year to hear various cases (Before the Court in Miller V. Alabama, 2012). At its discretion, the Supreme Court selects which cases they choose to review. Some of the selected cases began in the state court system and others began in the federal court system. On June 25, 2012 the justices of the Supreme Court weighed in on the constitutionality of life without parole for juvenile offenders. The case was Miller v. Alabama and actually included another case, Jackson v Hobbs, as well (2012). Both were criminal cases involving 14 year old boys who were

Throughout America’s history the franchise has been withheld from different groups. This has been possible due to weakly written laws that do not provide adequate protections. In 1965 PL 89-110 was passed, this law, commonly known as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, finally provided real protections for minorities living in southern states. In recent years the language of the law was modified within the Supreme Court to take away the law’s primary power. In the following mock Congressional testimony we will go back to 1848, 13 years before the American Civil War, and provide evidence of why a law like PL 89-110 is necessary and commendable.

Dolly Parton once quoted, “If you want the rainbow, you have to put up with the rain.” This quote helps understand the impact the Women’s Suffrage Movement makes on the present day. In 1848 the battle for women’s privileges started with the first Women 's Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York. On August 26, 1920, the 19th Amendment, which provided full voting rights for women nationally, was ratified in the United States Constitution when Tennessee became the 36th state to approve it (Burkhalter). Freya Johnson Ross and Ceri Goddard stated a quite valid argument in a secondary source Unequal Nation saying, “Since the ratification of the 19th Amendment, major social changes have transformed the lives of women and men in many ways but the United States has not noticed how far away our nation is from the gender equal future” (5). When women were finally granted the right to vote, barriers were broken which would allow an increasing chance to make progressive steps to a more equal nation, but our nation has yet to realize our full potential.

“Susan B. Anthony is not on trial; the United States is on trial” (Anthony 179). On November 18, 1872, Susan Brownell Anthony, an avid women’s suffragist, was arrested for illegally voting. For more than twenty years, Anthony had dedicated her life, tirelessly giving speeches and petitioning Congress in order to gain women across the nation the right to vote. Before voting, Miss Anthony had ensured that she was a registered voter, as well as the other fourteen women who accompanied her to the polls. As required by law, Anthony was asked several questions to assure she met the qualifications to vote. However, several days after casting her vote, a police officer arrived at her front door. After her arrest, the news of Anthony’s trial began making headlines throughout the United States. Eventually, Miss Anthony was found to be guilty of illegally voting. Nevertheless, through the close examination of several primary sources, bias and a distinct lack of fairness are revealed in United States v. Susan B. Anthony.

With the advancement of suffrage to equal pay, over the last century, women’s rights have progressed immensely. Through historic marches and demonstrations across the United States, women protested for their equal place in politics and social progress. Despite the fear-mongering components used in achieving these rights, women’s rights are still thoroughly debated within society today. Over the last century, incredible and unreachable goals have been fulfilled for women, such as the right to vote and a sense of equal state in the “Free World,” and can only improve in the years to come.

The Voting Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973 et seq., decision is important regarding the laws governing voting rights and their relationship to minority voters. Its implication and effects however does not end within the legal realms and dimensions but continues through to society, culture, and human rights. The Voting Rights Act initially established in 1965 under Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration protected “racial minorities” from biased voting practices. It was a huge stride in the civil rights movement and a victory over harmful, archaic, and biased voting practices and traditions.