Case Citation: Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, 566?U.S. ___ (2012) Parties: Albert W Florence,?? Plaintiff Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington et. al,? Defendants Facts: Albert Florence was arrested during a traffic stop by a state trooper as he had a bench warrant for his arrest due to a failed appearance at a fine enforcement hearing.…
Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the 7-2 majority. The Court held that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review cases from state courts that deal primarily with federal law. The Court also held that the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect against intrusions into a home or onto private property, or the conduct of police officers. The exclusionary rule therefore does not apply to the conduct of judicial officers. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote a concurring opinion where she argued that the majority’s decision does not allow any evidence that is the result of a clerical error.…
Mapp v. Ohio, after reading the case file this case should not have ever made it to the Supreme Court or any court in the land. This case was doomed from the beginning due to police misconduct that has opened a crack in a door for criminals to slide through. Should the exclusionary rule be abolished? I do believe that court’s ruling regarding Mapp v. Ohio affect the day-to-day police work of our Officers. Peradventure, that the police are serving a legal warrant to pick up robbery suspect who also is a known drug dealer, because of the exclusionary rule from Mapp v. Ohio when the police arrive at the suspect address, they are not allow to search the home looking for drugs unless the warrant stipulates.…
In the case of US vs. Gonzalez-Lopez lies many facts within the case. Some of the reliable facts is that a man named Cuauhtemoc Gonzalez-Lopez was charged with conspiracy to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. His family hired him an attorney by the name of John Fahle to represent him but Lopez had another person in mind. Lopez went ahead and hired attorney Joseph Low to represent him in the hopes of including him with Fahle or instead of. As time went on both attorneys represented Lopez but the Magistrate Judge only accepted Low’s provisional entry of appearance and allowed him to participate only if he immediately file a motion for admission pro hac vice.…
Throughout all of American history, no other document has maintained an equally important and ever changing role in our government than the United States Constitution. The Constitution drew the plans for the creation the three branches of government and provided the structure on which the national government would grow. The most famous aspect of the Constitution is the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison as a response to the States’ demands that individual liberties be provided and protected, the Bill of Rights serves to establish the personal rights of every man in America. Among these rights are the right to counsel, which is preserved in the Sixth Amendment, and the right to not withstand or be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment,…
I choose to do my research paper on one of my favorite court cases in American history Miranda vs. Arizona case. I’m choosing this court case because it brings up two amendments that tend to be overlooked by law enforcement comes around and one of the most well-known sayings. First I will be giving a quick background about those two amendments and then I will start talking about the case. The issues about this case involved the fifth and sixth amendment. Let me explain both of these amendments.…
Felon disenfranchisement is a common practice in the United States and occurs when incarcerated felons and ex-felons are denied certain rights, specifically their right to vote. Felonies vary between violent and nonviolent crimes and are considered to be more serious than misdemeanors. Depending on the crime and the state, conviction of a felony can lead to a minimum of one year in prison. Despite the crime and conviction, the question of whether or not an incarcerated felon or ex-felon has the right to vote is important to examine. While felon disenfranchisement laws are left to be decided by each individual state, the Supreme Court has upheld the view that felon disenfranchisement is constitutional yet has not provided a justification for…
Aside from protecting racially-motivated policing, the Supreme Court has also made it so that claims of racial bias cannot be made in the sentencing process. An example of this can be found in McClesky v. Kemp, where the Supreme Court illustrated that they would tolerate discrimination in the criminal justice system so long as no one explicitly claimed their racial biases (Alexander, 109). In 1987, an African American man named Warren McCleskey was facing the death penalty after being convicted for the murder of a Georgia police officer. Represented by lawyers from the NAACP, McCleskey challenged his sentence by presenting the high court with the Baldus study, an in-depth statistical analysis of Georgia’s death sentencing patterns conducted…
Selective Incorporation is a constitutional legal code that protects the rights of a citizen that is ensured in the Bill of Rights. It has been used in numerous cases throughout time to remind everyone that every citizen’s rights are protected. Some cases include Town of Greece v. Galloway, McDonald v. Chicago, Benton v. Maryland, and Atkins v. Virginia. In these cases, multiple people were tried for what were misunderstood as wrongdoings. Selective Incorporation is used widely in the judicial branch by judges and the jury to determine a verdict.…
This ruling prevents government officials from the continuance of unlawfully obtaining evidence and reinforces the Fourth Amendment. It took a liberal court to strike down what was bad law and apply the extension of the Fourth Amendment protection not to property, but to…
DAVID FALLSBAUER’S RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WERE VIOLATED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS, BECAUSE WHEN FACED WITH AMBIGUITY REGARDING THE A THIRD PARTY’S CONSENT TO SEARCH THEY FAILED TO MAKE A FURTHER INQUIRY. BY DOING SO, THE OFFICERS VIOLATED DAVID’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY. The primary question before this Court is whether police officers must make a further inquiry when faced with an ambiguity regarding a third party’s consent to search. The Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals have taken different views when deciding the actions a police officer must take when faced with an ambiguity pertaining to third party consent. It is crucial to our society that a person’s right to privacy is protected and able to be exercised.…
Id. at 265-66. “If any of these questions is answered in the affirmative, the restriction in question is unreasonable and unenforceable.” Id. at 266. In this case, the third prong is irrelevant, since “the mere fact of some limitation is not sufficient to constitute injury to the public interest.” Id. at 267.…
University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. (Vol. 15, Is. 5, pp. 1539-1559) Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=6b36aece-4bd5-4961-b371-ca7f92032795%40sessionmgr110&vid=2&hid=125 Martin, D. (2012, March 18).…