As time went on and European and eventually American influence spread across the country, Tribes began to feel their sovereignty threatned as they could no longer deal with wrongdoers on their land the same way they did in the past. The Federal Government began intrude onto Indian Land. In 1817 the U.S passed the General Crimes Act1, whcih gave the Federal Government jurisdiction in Indian Country when a crime was commited if either the victim or derfendent was a non-Native. Then, in 1885, the U.S passed the Major Crimes Act2 which gave the Federal Government jurisdiction in Indian Country over major crimes, such as murder, when the defendent was a Native.
Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corporation 933 N.E.2d 721 Court of Appeals of New York (2010) Parties: Parminder Kaur & Amanjit Kaur (Petitioners) v. New York State Urban Development Corporation (Respondent) Facts: Parminder Kaur and Amanjit Kaur owned a gasoline service station in the West Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan, and it was
In the case of Kyllo v. United States, I believe that the federal government did not exceed boundaries set by the Fourth Amendment. Conducting basic surveillance of the home with a basic thermal imager, Kyllo’s illegal activities were inferred using common patterns associated with indoor marijuana growth, and this information was used to obtain a search warrant. Although agents used extrasensory technology to view the normally invisible heat radiating from the home, their actions did not infringe upon Kyllo’s rights. All of the information used in obtaining the search warrant was gained from the exterior of the house, not through an unconstitutional search. However unorthodox the methods may have been, they did not constitute a violation.
Supreme Court Case Happy Villa May 19, 2014 Loanan Ase 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
Korematsu v. United States Korematsu v. United States (1944) actually began December 7, 1941 with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The attack on Pearl Harbor then began the conquering of Wake, Guam, Philippines, Malaya, Singapore, Dutch East Indies, New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Burma. With the attack
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.
KENT V. UNITED STATES Darrel Jones December 17, 2014 Northeastern State University Abstract 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).
The Supreme Court is the courtroom where all the legal cases dealing with congress or the constitution go to get a final decision. The Court is currently composed of a chief justice, eight associate justices, and nine officers. Their main goal as members of the Supreme Court is to make sure everything and anything abides by the constitution. It has many powers when it comes to law and especially the constitution, but it is not overly powerful due to the other two branches of the government. Checks and balances helps keep their powers level and just as important as the executive and legislative branch powers. The Court has the ability to remove a law or refute anything that violates the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, on average, receives around 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari every term. The Court grants and hears oral arguments for eighty cases. One case specifically was Printz v. United States. This case focused on dealing with background checks when purchasing a firearm. Jay Printz deemed the provisions to the Brady Bill unconstitutional, decided to take it to the District Courts and eventually the case ended up in the Supreme Court, where Stephen P. Halbrook fought and won the case based on a five to four ruling in favor of Printz.
Samantha Moyer Tim Lindberg POL 3231 Constitutional Law 17 November 2014 Katz v. United States (1967) On the date of February 4th, 1965, believing that the Petitioner had been using public pay phones to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began their surveillance into the life of the Petitioner, Charles Katz. Fifteen days later on February 19th, 1965 FBI agents working the case against the Petitioner had gained access to a phone booth within a set of phone booths that the petitioner frequented on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, and summarily recorded the petitioner’s side of conversations he was having on the phone within a booth nearby. This surveillance lasted until the 25th (excluding February 22, as no evidence was obtained due to technical difficulties) the date of the petitioner’s arrest, which took place immediately after he exited the same set of phone booths. In this case there are two major constitutional questions which need to be addressed: (1) whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether the search warrant used by the FBI officers in this case violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution in that the warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; (b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search
Kyllo v United States Title and Citation: • Kyllo v United States • http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html Facts of the case: • The police arrested the defendant (Kyllo) for growing marijuana in his home. The police officers used thermal technology, which is an uncommon tool to detect heat coming from his home from their car across the street.
Case 1: Abramski v. United States 1. In November of 2009, Bruce Ambramski purchased a 9mm handgun for his uncle because of his discount as a former member of the police force. On the ATF form he completed with his purchase, he specified that he was not buying this firearm on
I called the constituent, she asked how can she file a grievance against a CW caseworker that is no longer working for the DHS. She said that Karl Kikman, who was the CW CPS caseworker had told her back in June, that if she cooperates with CW and let him get in her house, this CW case will have a UNFOUNDED disposition, but he lied, after she fully cooperated with him, the case has been coded as a FOUNDED.
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.
In the case of Kusmider v State, Thomas Kusmider was told by his girlfriend that another individual had sexually assaulter her. Kusmider went to this individual's home where a confrontation ensued and the individual was shot by Kusmider (Brody and Acker, 2010). Even though the shot was not fatal, it
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) The Court held that a defendant must prove there is a legitimate expectation of privacy for a search to be challenged.