The Case Of Mills V. Rogers

1.Probable cause is a set of facts surrounding a specific circumstances that leads a “reasonable person” to believe an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. Probable cause is required in the instances of an arrest, search and seizure and the issuance of a warrant. To ESTABILISH reasonable cause the officer can use any trustworthy information. For example the office could use his/her experience, informant information, first hand observations or knowledge, victim reports, anonymous tips, or hearsay.

During the 1970’s, Connecticut was a very prosperous state with growing numbers of minorities. Many of these minorities would tend to live in the same neighborhoods which would lead to other races, like whites, leaving an area and moving to a new area away from these minorities. We learned about white flight in The Children in Room E4, but this has been relevant for many decades. These whites may have not moved out of state, but just away from the minority neighborhoods to places like the suburbs. This tended to cause property values to decrease in the minority neighborhoods, making it cheaper for more minorities to move in, but also harder for the minorities to move to areas where white people may be living like the suburbs. With decreased property values beginning to happen, the property taxes were also beginning to decrease. This is what led to the development of the case Horton v. Meskill. Also during this time, the United States was barely a decade old from all of the segregation it had experienced during the 1960’s. the segregation had an influence on why whites were moving away from the minorities, which was causing these public school property tax funding’s to be low. Even though segregation de jure was outlawed at this time, there were still people living by segregation de facto. The people did not realize this at this time in the 1970’s, but it eventually built up momentum and became relevant in the Connecticut court case Sheff v. O’Neill.

As children, we have all stepped that “boundary” between right and wrong. From stealing money to shoplifting to fighting, we have all made our parents frustrated, made poor decisions, and perhaps, even made a egregious mistake. However, when does stepping that “boundary” become irremediable? Can the government punish minors under the same criteria they do with adults? And most importantly, what does the United States Constitution say? These are all questions that both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court had to consider when they dived into the case of Roper v. Simmons. To provide a little historical

United States is one of the few nations that guarantees and protects freedom of expression of its citizens. Freedom of expression is defined as a right to voice ones beliefs and ideas without any harm. Under the Bill of Rights, the government has no power to restrict these unalienable rights. The First Amendment is exceedingly important to the liberty and freedom of individuals. It guarantees citizens the ability to express themselves, worship, voice their opinions, and rally to situations they disapprove of and want to be heard. A great amount of laws and cases pertain to adults and their freedom. It is often unrealized that adolescents and teenagers endure the same issues in their lives.

The shutdown of state mental hospitals and lack of available financial and institutional resources force mentally ill people to the United States Judicial System for mental health. Every year thousands of people are arrested for various crimes and they are sent to jail. Sixteen percent of these people have some type of mental health problem (Public Broadcasting System , 2001). When we consider that the United States has the largest incarcerated population in the world at 2.2 million, this number is staggering (Anasseril E. Daniel, 2007). This is about 1% of the entire population of the United States. There are many reasons as to why the situation has taken such a bad turn and when the history of the treatment of mental illness is examined one can see how the situation developed into the inhumane disaster it is today.

The case of Stowers v. Wolodzko revolves around the confinement of Mrs. Stowers, a Michigan resident who lived with her husband and two children. Mrs. Stowers was confined in a private mental hospital, in accordance with a court order that was obtained by Dr. Wolodzko and Dr. Smyk. Dr. Wolodzko and Dr. Smyk were under the instruction of the plaintiff’s husband, who wanted his wife’s mental competency evaluated. In December 1963, the doctors signed a statement declaring that they found Mrs. Stowers mentally ill (Stowers, 1971). This allowed for the removal of her from her home in an arguably traumatizing fashion.

The Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines originated in Iowa in December 1965 when seven Des Moines high school students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. Ultimately they were suspended in which the student’s fathers sued the school district. The court case battled through the District Court, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court. The ultimate ruling was that Des Moines School District violated the students First Amendment rights. Years later, in Oregon in 1990, teachers a McMinnville High School started a lawful strike and in response, the school district hired replacement teachers. Following, two students wore and distributed buttons and stickers with slogans supporting the strike. The students were suspended which led to the student’s parents suing the school district where the District Court provides a ruling. Similar to Tinker v. Des Moines, Chandler v. McMinnville was ruled that the school violated the students First Amendment rights of the students.

In the book, Crazy, by Pete Earley, provides a detailed overview of the mental health system in the United States, as it presents a first hand narrative of Earley’s family journey through the system. The author’s major premise and arguments, in the book, is to highlight the history of mental health, navigation through the judicial system with mental illness, the bureaucracy and policies of hospitals, society views on human rights and client safety, and the impact on the individual, family, and community. The content suggests that human service workers and public health workers should extend their professional lens to advocate for change in the mental health system in the United States.

The Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States of America. With this title they have the final say about the decisions for the country. However the Supreme Court can make mistakes and have so before. The case considered the worst Supreme Court decision among many scholars is the Dred Scott V. Sanford case from the pre-civil war era. In which time slavery was a very hot topic between the states. In this case it was determined that a slave was not only not a citizen of the United States but also property (our documents). This court ruling made useless of the Missouri compromise of 1850 which made states above the 36°30’ line Free states and all below the line slaves states (History). This decision was eventually overturned by the Civil War amendments the 13th and 14th which stated that slavery is illegal in all states not only ones in rebellion and that all people born in the united states are citizens including people of color (our documents).

The theory of ‘deinstitutionalization’ began arising with the theory of providing more freedom to the mentally ill and less spending on full time care facilities. The widespread use of drugs to control the mentally ill in the 1900s led to a mass release of patients and an emptying of asylums. Outpatient Psychiatric Clinics were established. Case Law in the United States began to be generated to provide the mentally ill with greater rights. Shelton v. Tucker 1960 provided that the mentally ill should receive care in the “least restrictive alternative”, which is a practice still utilized. O’Connor v. Donaldson 1975 ruled that non-dangerous mental patients have the right to be treated or discharged if they have been institutionalized against their will. This new approached permitted the mass exodus

Even If This Court Was To Find That Ms. Brie’s Authority to Consent Was Ambiguous, This Court Must Still Find that the District Court Properly Denied the Defendant-Appellant’s Motion.

Matthew D. Mills, Attorney at Law, LLC is a law firm that is located in Hillsboro, Oregon. Matthew D. Mills, Attorney at Law, LLC is adept in bankruptcy, consumer protection, DUII, and family law. Their family law areas of practice include divorce and separation, custody and parenting time, and child and spousal support. Attorney Matthew D. Mills, Esq. graduated from the Seattle University School of Law in December 2008. Attorney Matthew D. Mills, Esq. passed the bar exam in February of 2009. Since then, he has been involved in the fields of bankruptcy, family law, estate planning, and other civil law. Matthew D. Mills, Attorney at Law, LLC offers a free case evaluation. Matthew D. Mills, Attorney at Law, LLC is a proud member of the National

In the US Supreme Court case Roper V. Simmons, the decision that was to be made is whether or not the execution of a minor convicted of a crime representing cruel or unusual punishment as well as unconstitutional. Christopher Simmons was a junior in highschool, he talked among his friends discussing how it would be easy to get away with murder to the fact of their age. Mr. Simmons explained to his friends that he wanted to “kill someone by breaking into and entering the person’s home, robbing the person, tying the person up, and then throwing the person off a bridge”(Scott). In the early morning of September 9, 1993 Simmons and his friend went to Ms. Cook’s home and did exactly as planned by Christopher, the suspect knew the victim from a car

Ultimately, involuntary commitment remains a complicated medically and ethically debated topic; one that creates a conflict and clear divide, between individuals who content that involuntary commitment results in vulnerable individuals with psychiatric illnesses being subjective to coercion and civil rights infringement, and those who believe, based on the principle of utility, that involuntary commitment is essential and integral to the safety of the those with psychiatric illnesses, as well as to society as a whole. Both sides offer empirical evidence, as well as moral support for why they believe involuntary commitment is either legally and morally acceptable, or ethically unacceptable, and thereby should be illegal. Regardless, infringing

For a timeline and a narrative of the cases that set legal precedence in the areas of retaliation and sexual harassment would consist of Williams v. Saxbe in 1976. The court recognized sexual harassment as a form of sexual discrimination when sexual advances by male superior towards female employee. In the Barnes v. Costle case in 1977, it set the precedent that if a female employee was retaliated against for rejecting sexual advances of her boss, it is a violation of Title VIIs prohibition against sex discrimination. The court of US Court of Appeals, Second District ruled in this matter. In the Bundy v. Jackson case in 1981, it set the precedent that if an employee is sexually insulted, there can be Title VII liability. This was ruled by