The United States V Mcclain

As technology advances, the world is forced to adapt as an increasingly quick pace. Specifically, our justice system must consider the constitutionality of surveillance and other information gathering techniques and how they coincide with current interpretations of the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 2013 case of Maryland v King explicitly related to the legality of DNA collection of individuals early in the booking process for serious crimes. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that pre-conviction DNA collection of those arrested for serious crimes is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment; a decision that will

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.

Laws are enforced to provide our society with safety, boundaries, protection of rights, and overall justice. The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights were established years ago to reduce the tensions and conflicts of our newly founded nation. It sought out to accomplish this by providing justice through an equal voice for all citizens. However, this equal voice for justice more often times than not is squandered and diminished. Things such as race, religion, and culture often times blur the lines of the law and fair outcomes in a court. Individuals feel that their beliefs are more important than the protection of rights and the deliverance of law or the law itself cannot go outside of its limitations to provide justice. This is apparent in the court cases of Marbury v Madison, Plessy v Ferguson, and the book To Kill a Mocking Bird by Harper Lee. These cases clearly exemplify that the law does not always provide justice, although it endeavors to do so.

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

Today, in the United States, most citizens are able to appreciate the fair, balanced legal system that is in place. The country suffered many failures before establishing the United States Constitution, and later the Bill of Rights, which became the foundation of the country’s legal system and protection of the citizens’ rights (American Sentinel University). Citizens may take their right to trial or their right to due process for granted, without realizing how life was before these rights were recognized and established. Until the Constitution in 1787, the justice system was not permanent and not quite clear, causing unfair and unjust treatment. Of course, no system can be perfect, but it is possible to discover options that suit the wants

The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. The Kent case helped lead the way in the development of a list of eight criteria and principles. This creation of these criteria and principle has helped protect the offender and public for more than forty-five years. Which as a reason has forever changed the process of waving a juvenile into the adult system (Find Law, 2014).

In many ways, the opinion in this case represents a final step in the creation of

The Dusky V. United States was a case that began to question the competency of people that have committed crimes. On September 10, 1958 Milton R. Dusky was charged with unlawfully transporting, a 15 year old, across state lines from Missouri to Kansas with two other young boys, Leonard Dischart, age 13, and Richard H. Nixon, age 16. The young girl had known Nixon before she knew Dischart; therefore, she accepted the invitation when the two boys and the defendant asked if she needed a ride to the drug store. Dusky and the boys, after leaving the drug store, had decided to go for drinks, that Dusky had provided. Intoxicated, they debated whether or not they should have sexual relations with the young girl with “the type of girl she is.” Returning

In the Marbury Vs. Madison’s case Justice John Marshall represented the case and I strongly believe that his points were solid and worth to be granted true and rational. John Marshall’s argument is that the acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not laws and therefore are not progressed into law to the courts, and ultimately the judicial boards’ first responsibility is always to practice and to make firm of the Constitution.

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

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.

In today’s society crimes in the United State are growing each day, and the major aspect of the U.S criminal justice system is the punishment imposed on those who committed crimes in our communities. One method of sentencing criminals was the establishment of the mandatory minimum sentencing. During the early days of the republic, specific sentences were carried out for certain crime and early mandatory sentences the forms of punishment used at the time stretched from ducking stools/cucking stools for disorderly women and dishonest tradesmen in England, Soctland to hanging for convicted murderers. However, in recent years, evidence gathered have shown that the federal mandatory minimum sentencing were not in effect for reaching the goals of the criminal justice system. Chief Justice William Rehnquist has previously stated that “these statutes are “perhaps a good example of the law of unintended consequences. This essay will discuss the history, goals, benefits, and negatives of the American Judicial Systems Mandatory Sentencing.

While the United States’ justice system has been a model for many countries around the world, the injustice of certain aspects in our court’s system is prominent. Mandatory minimums are just one example the of injustice in our justice system. The Supreme Court has “…casted doubt on the constitutionality of the federal sentencing guidelines used for nearly two decades” (Kenneth Jost, 2004), despite this, nothing has been done to correct it. And while the idea of mandatory minimums is a good thing, they don’t work in the American justice system or in current American society.

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.

1. How, if at all, can you distinguish Greber from other instances of payment for professional services? Suppose the percentage Dr. Greber paid to the physicians had not exceeded Medicare’s guideline? Would that payment still amount to prohibited remuneration in this court’s eyes?