United States Vs. Jones Case Study

United States v. Jones is one of many cases that the Supreme Court has ruled on. The case was one of the few cases that has a unanimous ruling. Evening though there was a unanimous rule there was still a debate on reasoning behind the ruling. The debate is between privacy given to a person’s property and a person’s expectation of privacy. United States v. Jones deals with a global positioning device attached to Jones’ car by officers without a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled that the attachment of the global positioning device was a violation of the fourth amendment. Justice Scalia gave the plurality opinion and their reasoning was that the intrusion on the car made it a violation of the fourth amendment.

My role as Allen Brookson is significant in the case of Brookson v. Carter because I was the first to be wrongfully attacked by Wendell Carter. My role will help to prove that Carter is guilty for various reasons, and why Allen Brookson and Fred Brookson should be offered compensations for both severe physical and posttraumatic stress. The physical injuries sustained were taken to the hospital that resulted in a detrimental medical expense and traumatic stress such has weight loss, chronic anxiety, and insomnia. Essentially, the Brooksons should win this case because Carter committed a Class B misdemeanor by illegally carrying a knife that can injury someone, and we will, too, because of Assault of the third degree, Carter committed assault

On Monday August 08, 2016 I, Detective K. Holland #636 began reviewing this case file. The three listed suspects, Ramon Alvarado, Jose Blancas, and Hector Gatica were believed to be involved with burglarizing vehicles prior to their arrest. Since their arrest, victims had come forwards to report their vehicle was burglarized. Property belonging to Malinda Sims, (a Samsung cell phone), was returned to her by Officer Acosta. Sims also reported that $80-$100 was stolen from her vehicle. Officer Weaver advised that there was still electronic equipment inside the Dodge Avenger that was located at Brownwood Towing. A search warrant was sought for the Avenger, and it was signed by Judge Sam Moss. The search of the vehicle was occurred on 08/08/16

Facts: Antoine Jones was an owner of a nightclub in D.C. and came under the suspicion of drug trafficking. Police and FBI began to investigate his surroundings through visual surveillance of the club, installing a camera focused on the door of the club, and a wiretap covering Jones cell phone. When information was gained, the government decided to apply for a warrant with the U.S. District Court for the D.C. that would allow an electronic tracking device to be put on a Jeep that was registered in Jones wife names. The warrant instructions were to install the device in D.C. within 10 days. Police

In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a guidance policy called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would grant temporary deportation protection to about 4.3 million undocumented immigrants. But in that year, twenty-six states challenged the DAPA guidance, therefore the Supreme Court will decide whether the states have standing to challenge DAPA if will increase the costs of state-subsidized benefits, for example drivers license , and if DAPA is lawful and constitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. This case is called United States v. Texas. The United States states that Texas lacks Article III standing to challenge

In the case of Johnson vs. Texas, Gregory Lee Johnson was brought to court for burning the American Flag outside of the convention center during the Republican National Convention. The incident occurred in Dallas Texas in the year 1984 when Ronald Reagan was President. The report stated that Johnson was protesting against Reagan’s policies in America. Johnson was proved to be a member of a private institution that promoted the communist movement. His protest against Reagan expressed his dissatisfaction. Johnson was arrested and charged for violating a Texas statue fined $2000 dollars for his actions. In response to the fine, Johnson appealed and took his case to the United States Supreme Court.

John Adams appointed 200 men for 16 spots called the “midnight appointments” during the latter part of his presidency. The Organic Act allowed Adams to appoint 42 Justices of the Peace. Marshall as Adam’s outgoing secretary of state failed to deliver all of the commissions. The new secretary of state, Madison, refused to deliver five of the remaining commissions. Mr. Marbury and three others were denied their commission went straight to the Supreme Court to appeal.

In the case State v. Ellis, Central State University RA discovered marijuana in the defendant’s dorm room while they were conducting an authorized, unannounced safety inspection. Campus police officers were then 19 notified and went to the room.While the campus police did not participate in the search, they were present in the room at the resident assistants’ invitation. The Ellis court concluded that the seizure of the marijuana was unconstitutional. It found that while the resident assistants’ search was authorized under the university’s policies and procedures, the later police entry into the room was unlawful because it was made without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. This case would be beneficial to Deary Jones because it

Facts. A police officer received a tip from an informant, whom he had previously worked with and felt was reliable, that the Respondent, who was sitting in a vehicle early in the morning, had drugs in his possession. The police officer investigated the informant’s report by first tapping the car window and asking the Respondent to get out of the car. The Respondent lowered the window, then the police officer reached in and removed a fully loaded gun from the Respondent’s waist. The gun was not visible from outside the car, but it was exactly where the informant reported it was. A search was then conducted after the arrest: heroin, a second revolver,

In Breed v. Jones, a petition was filed against Jones, a 17 year old, who committed acts of robbery. During a detention hearing Jones was ordered to be detained pending a hearing on the petition. After hearing the testimony from two witnesses and Jones, the juvenile court found that the petition was true. The proceedings were continued for a dispositional hearing, in which the Court indicated that there was no care, treatment, or training program through the juvenile court that would be conducive for Jones. Jones’ counsel orally moved to continue the matter, challenging that Jones was not informed that the hearing was going to be a transfer hearing. The Court declared Jones unfit for treatment as a juvenile, and ordered that he be moved to

In Los Angeles, it’s a very popular and expensive place to live, and due to many reasons over 55,000 people have been homeless, up to 2006 the homeless would get arrested for laying in public areas, losing all of their belongings. In the case of Jones v. City of Los Angeles six homeless people appealed their acclimation and won, causing the city to remove that law. In the Case of Jones v. Los Angeles, the court made the right decision because this law acted against the 8th and 14th amendment.

The case of United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) was recognized by the Supreme Court as a warrantless arrest with probable cause in public places did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Since this individual was robbed in a public place a warrantless arrest can exist. However, the officer must have probable cause such as adequate reason that the person had committed a felony crime before an arrest is executed. Therefore, probable cause can be determined by a statement from the victims, witnesses, personal knowledge, observation of the officer, reliable hearsay, and informant tips. Nevertheless, if the crime occurs in an officer present, then a misdemeanant that breach the peace does not need a warrant. On the other hand, each state has

The case I decided to use for my reflection was the “United Sates vs. Jones” case. Jones was a man being investigated for drug trafficking and so the police got a warrant to put a GPS on his jeep to monitor him. The police went beyond what they were allowed to do in the warrant, therefore he was found not guilty due to the violation of the Fourth Amendment. District prosecutors disagreed and took it to the Supreme court to review.

Jae Lee v. United States of America should have been an open and shut case back in 2016. Jae Lee, a noncitizen permanent resident, was convicted of being in possession of ecstasy with the intent to distribute. Because of his noncitizen status this particular offense qualified as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act, meaning he was subject to mandatory deportation. Lee’s court appointed attorney continually advised him that if he “took a plea bargain he would not be deported stating ‘the government cannot deport you’ if deportation was not in the plea agreement” (Jae Lee, 2017). Lee contested that had he known taking a plea would result in deportation he would instead have tried his luck at a trial.

Jones-Blair is a paint company headquartered in Dallas, Texas that sells architectural paint. Jones-Blair markets its paint to fifty counties in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana, and eleven county Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) metropolitan areas. Jones-Blair has branded itself as having a high-end paint product. Increased R&D, material, and labor cost have allowed Jones-Blair to have the highest price among competitors in its service area and still obtain a great amount of business. Jones-Blair is focused on providing architectural paint to a market that is fifty percent segmented, which half consists of “do it yourself” consumers and the other fifty percent spilt among professional painters and government contracts. Jones-Blair has enjoyed dollar sales rising at an annual rate of four percent over the past five years. Even though Jones-Blair has enjoyed a successful rise in dollar sales, it has seen a decline in the gallon volumes in DFW areas due to a rise in competition. Jones-Blair is aware that it is approaching the threshold in its prices. Jones-Blair is afraid that once the threshold price is reached, then the decline in volume sales will lead to Jones-Blair unsuccessfully meeting its sales margins. Jones-Blair needs to determine how and where to adjust marketing efforts to raise sales volume amounts in the DFW and Non-DFW areas. Jones-Blair currently spends approximately three percent of net