Us V Morrison Case Summary

Riley v. California is a Supreme Court case that pertains to the Fourth Amendment; specifically, the privacy clause. This case was decided by the Court in 2014 with a unanimous decision for Riley. It came to the Court after the petitioner, Riley, was stopped for a traffic violation and then arrested on a weapons charge. The arresting officer proceeded to search Riley and removed a cell phone from his pocket. After accessing the phone the officer found evidence of gang related activity. The officer took Riley back to the station and a detective that specialized in gang related crime went through the phone and found multiple pictures and videos pertaining to a shooting a few weeks prior. They sought to enhance the charges due to the evidence found on his phone that connected him to the gangs. Riley moved to suppress the evidence that was discovered on his phone; the trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. A number of interests groups appeared as amici in this case including: EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union, Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, Constitutional Accountability Center amongst others submitted briefs in support of the petitioner. Two groups submitted briefs in support of the respondent and those include Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies and Arizona et al.

The Illinois trial court denied motion to suppress, finding the gun was recovered during a lawful stop and frisk. The Illinois Appellate Court reversed Wardlow 's conviction, concluding that the gun should have been suppressed because Officer Nolan did not have reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigative stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968). 287 Ill. App. 3d 367, 678 N. E. 2d 65 (1997). The Illinois Supreme Court agreed. 183 Ill. 2d 306, 701 N. E. 2d 484 (1998). While rejecting the Appellate Court 's conclusion

During the supreme court case U.S v. Lopez, the United States Federal Government’s argument was that carrying a firearm inside an educational environment would lead to a violent crime. A violent crime ultimately affects the population of a school. Due to this, the federal government believed that the commerce clause should be practiced in this case. The Supreme Court backed the previous decision offered by the Five Court of Appeals. In United States v. Lopez, the U.S Supreme Court stated that Congress actually has the ability to make laws under the Clause, but these powers were limited and could not affect the Lopez case.

Extreme sumarization of r v brown( key point of arguments used by the five judges)

Facts: John Angus Smith attempted to trade a Mac 10 machine gun for 2 ounces of cocaine. Smith was then arrested for possession of cocaine and a fully automatic weapon. Federal law requires a mandatory minimum prison sentence for 30 years if a machine gun is "used" in the commission of a drug offense, and because these two things were used in conjunction, Smith was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Mr. Moran’s pre-marital agreement with Ms. Moran is enforceable under Oregon law because Ms. Moran voluntarily entered into the premarital agreement and because the agreement was not unconscionable when it was executed. In Oregon, a premarital agreement can only be rendered non-enforceable if the party seeking to do away with the agreement is able to prove that they had not voluntarily entered into the agreement or that the agreement had been unconscionable at the time it was signed. 11 O.R.S. § 108.725 (2015). In the case at hand, neither of these requirements has been met, and thus the lower court’s judgement for Ms. Moran should be reversed and judgement rendered for Mr. Moran.

Name of the Justice who issued the majority opinion of the case: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

As part of their journalism class students produced a newspaper with a collection of student-written articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on kids. As a result, the principal made the decision to delete the two articles from that edition of the school’s newspaper. Consequently, three students sued the school district alleging violation of their First Amendment rights.

Facts: Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Attorney General was a case wherein the defendant (Skinner) was convicted twice for armed robbery and once for the crime of stealing chickens and was sentenced to compulsory sterilization as per the provisions of Oklahoma’s Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act of 1935. The act permitted sentences of compulsory sterilization for “habitual offenders” in crimes involving moral turpitude (Showalter, 2012, p. 492). The Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma (plaintiff) instituted proceedings against Skinner and was ordered to be rendered sterile. It affirmed the order that the operation

Criminal profiling refers to the inference of offender characteristics. Historically, the use of criminal profiling can be traced back to 38 C.E. when Jews were wrongfully accused of blood libel, also known as the kidnapping and murdering the children of Christians for religious rituals during Jewish holidays (Turvey, 2012). As time progressed, criminal profiling has evolved into the study of crime and criminal behaviors, including mental health and physical evidence surrounding a crime that has been committed in an attempt to identify a likely suspect. However, the validity of scientific evidence as a whole was challenged in the 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 592. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge was the “gatekeeper” to prevent “junk science” from entering the courtroom and outlined standards, also known as Daubert standards, for expert testimony including, testing, peer review, error rates and acceptability (Turvey, 2012).

In People v Smith, Ricky Franklin Smith pled guilty to breaking and entering and being a fourth offense habitual offender in a Michigan Courtroom. Smith was sentenced and he believed his sentence was harsh so he appealed his sentence to the Michigan Court of Appeals. Smith’s counsel argued Smith was “entitled to be resentenced because the presentence investigation report contained references to his juvenile criminal record which had been automatically expunged pursuant to former MCR 5.913.[5]” (People v Smith, 1991). In two previous cases, People v Price (1988) and People v Jones (1988), the Michigan Court of Appeals issued contradicting rulings regarding using juvenile records during sentencing.

On Saturday, June 27, 1987, Tyrone Payne spent his morning and afternoon drinking beer and injecting cocaine; Mr. Payne at approximately 3 p.m., entered the apartment of Charisse Christopher (28), and her two children; Lacie (2) and Nicholas (3). Mr. Payne approached Ms. Christopher and began making sexual advanced towards her, when she resisted, he killed her and Lacie. Nicholas suffered serious inflicting wounds; however, he survived. At trial, Payne presented four witnesses: his parents, girlfriend, and clinical psychologist Dr. John T. Huston. Their testimonies relied heavily on how good of a person he was, attended church and demonstrated low intelligence as a form of being mentally handicapped. The state presented the testimony of Ms. Mary Zvolanek (Charisse mother). She

Style of Cause and Citation: - R. V. Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 130 Court: - Supreme Court of Canada Facts of the Case: - Appellant is a addicted to drugs - Was a dealer as well - Has a prior coniction in relation to drugs - Has served time for his prior conviction - Was then convicted on three accounts of possession with the purpose of trafficking Issues/ Questions before the court: - Is the mandatory minimum sentence in s. 5(3) of the CDSA unconstitutional? - Dose this violate section 12,7, and 9 of the charter? - Do the provincial courts have the power to rule that something is unconstitutional? Procedural History: - Provincial court sentenced the appellant to twelve months under s. 5(3) of the CDSA - Appellant stated that

On October 23, I went to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to attend the sentencing in United States v McClain. The judge was Reggie Walton and the room was sixteen, sixth floor. Initially I could not enter into the building because I only had my Paraguayan ID and they wanted to see my passport. I also show them my American University ID to prove my identity. The security guard consulted with his superior about my case and after a few minutes of deliberation the superior allowed me to get into the building. The reason was that I am an American University student and he said we visit the court all the time. However, he told me that for the next time I should bring my passport.

The case file recommendations for Jones, Smith and Thompson. The evidence against Jones on February 6, 2005 for the third possession of cocaine after the convictions in 1993 and 1994. Given the fact of being on good behavior as an informant to agreeing with have the under over agents meet the dealer. Jones will not be persecuted for any drug offenses that go on while being on an informant based on the two prior convictions for possession of cocaine, Jones would be tried in Federal Court but due to Jones cooperation the case will be filed in Wichita city and due to the change in charge to drug paraphernalia it is a minor criminal case that would take place in the Wichita Municipal Court ("Municipal Court", 2017).