Supreme Court Case Essay

(B) Evidence of the Handgun and Magazine Should not be Suppressed Because Officer Richardson Seized the Evidence in Plain View and as a Result of a Protective Sweep The Supreme Court indicated that entry into a home based on exigent circumstances requires probable cause to believe that the entry is justified. (People v. Ormonde (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 282.) Exigent circumstances mean that an emergency requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger. (Id.) A protective sweep under Maryland v. Blue

Analyzing the Supreme Court of Canada Case: Carter v. Canada (Attorney General)- the Death with Dignity Case The appellants Lee Carter, Hollis Johnson and Gloria Taylor joined with other appellants to bring the civil claim which is against the prohibition on assisted suicide found in s. 14 and s. 241 (b) of the Criminal Code (Carter, para. 20). The same issue which was brought in Rodriguez v. British Columbia 20 years ago was declared to be constitutional. In this case, ultimately Lee Carter’s appeals

Court Case/Descriptions Ruling Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) 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. The Supreme Court held that newspapers

unsolved rape case from 2003 and convicted of rape. In the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the lower court’s decision was reversed because King’s right against suspicionless searches outweighed the identification purposes his DNA served in his 2009 case. Yet, the court maintained that the MDCA was constitutional because there are scenarios where DNA would be necessary to identify but not investigate an arrestee. Maryland then called for the Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court decision and affirm

The case here at hand was argued October 5th of 1964. The issue was one that dealt with Ollie’s Barbecue and its owner Ollie McClung in Alabama and the refusal of black patrons coming inside to dine-in. Ollie’s only allowed take out to black customers, even though the majority of employees were black. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was handed down in July, Congress along with Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach were arguing that a clear violation of Title II of the Act was being committed

Derek Stene Professor: Lucas Loafman GBK 332.120 Legal Environment of Business Tuesday-Thursday 1pm Analyzing a Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges A. Multiple groups of same sex couples sued their state agencies in four different states Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky to challenge the constitutionality of those four states ‘ban on same sex marriage. The plaintiffs of each case argued that the states’ statues violated the Equal Protection Clause and their Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Many court cases throughout history have affected how law enforcement do their jobs on a day to day basis. The decisions in the court room that are pertaining to a particular part of law enforcement, whether it is corrections or policing can change how new policies are put into place. Policy is often re-wrote due to the decisions made in cases that decide the violations of ones rights. This is especially true when it comes to searching an individual. When the court makes a ruling on a case the department

History was made in the Supreme Court that started to help end racial segregation. It all started when Oliver Brown filed a lawsuit against the school board of Topeka, Kansas because they wouldn’t let his daughter into one of their white schools. His argument was that the racially segregated schools in Topeka violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the black and white schools were unequal and never could be equal. The Federal Court’s ruling was that the black and

Ammar). It is clear from the Supreme Court's statements that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as enunciated in Massiah v. United States and United States v. Henry, does not extend to the pre-indictment period. The taped conversations at issue in defendant's motions all took place prior to defendant's January 24, 2006 federal indictment while defendant was incarcerated for state parole violations. Even though defendant faced charges in state court, because defendant had yet to be charged

by little and little, the foundations of the Constitution….” In a continuation of the perversion of the court began by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court of the United States continues to erode the people’s right to govern themselves, thereby usurping the democracy. On July 28, 2015, SCOTUS declared that the denial of gay marriage is unconstitutional. The case dealt with 32 plaintiffs who