The Court : The Supreme Court Exists

Whether a law enforcement officer was justified in acting in the absence of a warrant depends on the “totality of circumstances.” The United States Supreme Court uses a “careful case-by-case” approach to determine whether circumstances rose to the required level of exigency. Recognized exigent circumstances that justify warrantless entry may include, but are not limited to: entering to provide emergency aid to someone inside, pursuant to an immediate threat to officer safety, in “‘hot pursuit’ of a fleeing suspect,” “to put out a fire and investigate its cause,” and to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence of a serious crime. While circumstances that present the requisite exigency to justify a warrantless search differ, “in each

Once it is established the testing method used passes the Daubert test, the court must determine admissibility based on the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search 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 (US Const.)

With the young nation of America entered into the 19th century, there were still major issues when it came to the balance of powers of the different government branches. The status of judicial review in the Supreme Court was never pressed upon or given any real structure to. The power of judicial review had appeared many times in history before the set up of the Supreme Court as, in England, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir Edward Coke made the originated the idea . During the ruling of the case of Dr. Bonham’s Case, Coke found that the London College of Physicians had no right to levy fines against anyone who violated their rules. He would later go on to state that, “no person should be a judge in his own case” (Fletcher 12). The act was revolutionary at the time as it set the notion of that an official body of government was needed to give fair governess to the people. The idea would pop up once in a while in events such as the Constitutional Convention where records that were kept by the textbook University of Chicago Law Review saw that “13 out of the 15 delegates made statements that were in support of the idea of judicial review” (Prakash 123). The interesting part about the quote is that it states that the idea of judicial review was in place in America many years before the actually case of Marbury v. Madison. Even in the Federalist Papers No. 78 which was published in May 28, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, went into lengthy discussion about judicial review. In

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

The courts play a huge role in the criminal justice system. The dual court system of the United States (U.S.) was established through the U.S. constitution. The court systems have a multiple purposes and elements of court. Federal and state court system is what makes up the dual court system of the U.S. Today the U.S. court system is what it is today because of previous legal codes, common law, and the precedent it played in the past. Making the U.S. court system a vital role in the criminal justice system..

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

The consequences presented in Terry vs. Ohio were put forth but examination of the “reasonable balancing test.” By doing so, a balancing test that has a wider variety of causes is now in effect. In this landmark case, it was held that policemen are permitted to perform a “stop and frisk” pat down, if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is presently dangerous and carrying a deadly weapon. This “stop and frisk” method was later extended to vehicle arrests as well.

This paper will examine the issue of whether the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath and blood tests incident to arrests for drunk driving.

The Fourth Amendment gives United States citizens the right of protection from unlawful searches and seizures. Recently, in the case Maryland v. King the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure of DNA during the booking process is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. The ruling by the Supreme Court has to be further evaluated and questioned as it raises questions as to what is covered under the Fourth Amendment and if a person is allowed that right while in custody. Vikram Iyengar in his law review article ‘Maryland v. King: The case for uniform, nationwide DNA collection and DNA database laws in the United States’ will allow a closer look into how this ruling may cause a conflict with state laws. The ruling in this case will spur many

Exigent circumstances is one of the few exceptions accepted by the courts that would override somebody’s fourth amendment right. Over the years through the case laws, some situations have become more prominent to be considered “exigent” than others. The following scenario will show a situation where one of this circumstances might apply to subsequently argument about the reasoning and the legality behind the application of the exception in said scenario.

Article III of the Constitution established and set forth the guidelines of the Federal Government. This branch consists not only of the Supreme Court but those lower courts that have been established and created by the Congress. It also sets forth the precedence for the judges and their terms on such courts. It goes on to state that they may remain in office during good behavior (which means they may serve for life) as well as be paid during their time in office and will not diminish during their time in that office.

The United States court system is the institution were all the legal disputes in the american society are carryed out and resolved. However, one single court is not enough to resolve every single dispute in society and that is why the court system is made up of two different courts, the federal courts and the state courts. Moreover, the federal and state courts are made up of several divisions made to handle legal disputes differently depending on its seriousness. For example, the state court is made up of trial courts of limited jurisdiction and probate courts were cases and disputes originate and then move up to trial courts of general jurisdiction, intermediate apellate courts, and courts of last resort respectively depending on the case.In contrast, the federal court consists of district courts, territorial coutrs, tax court, court of international trade, claims court, court of veterans appeals, an courts of military review which then move on to courts of appeals respectively and may ultimately end up in the United States supreme court. In addition, cases from state court may also appeal into the federal court system but not the other way around.

There are many different reasons a person can find themselves in a court as the defendant.

There are three women on the Supreme Court, one of whom is Latina, and there is one black justice serving on the Supreme Court (Brown, 2016). This is a major issue. The United States, the “melting pot”, has an extreme lack of diversity in their court system. This is an issue that affects several aspects of society. Decisions made by judges will affect the lives of men, women, and their families. The decisions made by judges can also create law. Unlike political officials, the people do not always have the power to vote judges into their positions. Instead, the people hope that their peers with the power to affect the system choose a candidate that will fight for them. Often times, this does not happen.

1. The U.S. Supreme Court on the court case this is the case of 2009 where the Supreme Court agreed that this had been against the sixth amendment right of confrontation for anyone who is under suspicion to be given a chemical drug test report and not having a testimony of the person who is carrying out the test. In spite of the ruling that such practices were not allowed by the constitution, it also rules out that the “notice-on-demand” statues were in line with the constitution. The state was not in a position of violating the constitution by this statue by notifying the defendant that the prosecution was able to submit a test even though they didn’t have a testimony from the person who carried it out, as it will also give the defendant enough time to object the results.