The facts of the case stated that on August 2, 2009, Riley, who belonged to the one of the gangs of San Diego, California, and others shot at a rival gang member while driving past them. The shooters got into Riley’s car and drove away. Then, twenty days later on August 22, 2009, the police pulled Riley over driving a different car because of his expired license registration tags. They found that his driver’s license had been suspended. Police searched his car before impounding it. During the search, the police located two guns in the car and then arrested Riley for possession of said guns. Riley had his cell phone in his pocket at…
Relief Sought: Ted Chimel brought light to the fact that police officers arresting a suspect at that suspect’s home could not search the entire home without a warrant to search but may search just the area in the vicinity of that suspect…
In the case Ridley v. California the Court decided on whether the searching of a smart phone of someone placed under arrest without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment. David Ridley was arrested for possession of firearms. During the arrest an officer seized Ridley’s cell phone and searched his phone without obtaining a warrant from a judge. The officer found evidence that involves him in an earlier gang shooting and charged him in the shooting. During his trial the California Court of Appeals ruled that the search and the obtaining evidence from his cell phone was valid. He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in which the court decide unanimously that police need a warrant to search a suspect’s cell phone.…
Chimel v California (1969) was a landmark case that involved Officers armed with only an arrest warrant, enter Ted Chimel’s home and arrest him for burglary. The Officers decided to search his entire house in search of the stolen coins from the burglarized coin shop. They justified their search maintaining that it was to uncover evidence but that it was incident to arrest. Chimel was convicted and his appeal reached the U.S. Supreme Court; where they overturned the ruling stating that “the search of Chimel’s residence, although incident to arrest, became invalid when it went beyond the person arrested and the area subject to that person’s “immediate control” (Schmalleger, 2014). This case gave officers the authority to conduct a protective…
Your Name: Marcos Zuniga Case Name: California v Hodari Citation: 499 U.S. 621 Date Decided: 1991 Area of Law: Fourth Amendment Vote: 7/2 Scalia delivered the opinion of the court, in which justice Rehnquist, CJ, joined and White, Blackmun, O’ Conner, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ, joined. Stevens, filed a dissenting opinion, in which Marshall, J., joined Procedural History: California v Hodari first proceeding were through the juvenile courts.…
In the present case, the question is whether Joe Smith parent can file a lawsuit because he was discriminated against due to his race, sex, national origin, religion, and/or financial means. Like in the Yick Wo case, Smith is discriminated due to his national origin. Even though, his origin is white and the admissions policy might appear neutral to some, but it is applied unequally to whites. In DeFunis v Odegaard, this case was ruled moot because Defunis was in his last year of law school, so the courts would have to wait for a later case to set a precedent. In Bakke v. UC Board of Regents, the court would decide that at place of higher education can use race in their admission policy, but it cannot be the lone deciding factor. When the university…
Abagail Fisher, a white female, applied for admission into the University of Texas. She was denied entrance because she did not qualify for Texas' Top 10 Percent Plan. This plan guarantees entrance to the top ten percent of every graduating high school class in Texas. Miss Fisher sued the University of Texas because she claimed that the use of race in admissions to the college violated the Equal Protection Clause from the 14th Amendment. The case made it all the way up to the Supreme Court which came to a final verdict. The University of Texas could use race as a plus factor when considering admissions. This use of race as a plus factor promotes diversity and therefore satisfies strict scrutiny.…
a member of a different gang driving by. They used Riley's car to get away and then left the car somewheres else. On August 22, 2009 they pulled Riley over while he was driving another car on an expired license registration tag. After Riley was stopped for this violation the officer seized and searched his phone without a warrant, he was arrested on weapon charges. The Riley v. California case was argued April 29, 2014 and decided on June 25, 2014.The main issue in this case was how the police officer searched his phone without a warrant then arrested him and if this action violated the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment clearly states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…”.…
The case 8.7 discusses whether the affirmative action program was enforced and whether it caused harm towards white employees. The court had to determine if the Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway violated the Title VII regulation when it made race a factor in choosing which employee they should terminate. Sharon Taxman, who is white and Debra Williams, who is black were two equally qualified employees who both begun working with the Board on the same day for nine years. In 1975, the Board of Education had an affirmative action policy relevant to employment choices.…
On June 23rd 2016, the judges of the supreme court gathered to analyze a challenge about the University of Texas of Austin’s race-conscious admissions program. This case, known as Fisher II v. The University of Texas, was brought about when senior Abigail Fisher applied to the University of Texas and did not get in. She was not accepted in the top ten percent program as well( a program in Texas Law stating that top ten percent students from all schools in Texas get automatic admission into UT Austin), and firmly believed that she had the academic status to get in. She implied that the fact that she was white and had a good financial status reduced her chances of admission into the university and that she was heavily racially discriminated.…
A- The court held that Title VII doesn’t prohibit courts from ordering the race quotas it did because it was an appropriate circumstance in trying to right past discrimination. Since Local 28 was known for only allowing whites and recommending people they knew it would be impossible for people of color to ever have a chance of being part of the program.…
A. University of California Regents vs. Bakke (1978) wanted to go to grad school at uc davis-cali regents didn't have minorities and made a goal to have more diverse student body-uc davis set aside 15/100 for minorities-Alen Bakke files suit uses 14th amendment EP clause-Supreme court ruled in favor of Bakke-said you can't have quota for minorities-can consider race for one part of admission but not the only reason…
Use each key term below in a sentence that shows the meaning of the term.…
Educational Opportunities The Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954 How have historical events, like the Brown v. Board of Education decision, shaped the landscape of educational opportunities for African Americans, and what lingering challenges persist today? A comprehensive and equitable education policy is implemented, addressing historical disparities and ensuring equal access to quality education for all students, irrespective of their racial or socio-economic background. Educational disparities persist as a result of lax policies, budget cuts, or a lack of commitment to addressing the root causes of historical inequalities. There has been remarkable progress in challenging the educational disparity.…
In Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a law may not punished a status; i.e., one may not be punished to being an alcoholic or for being addicted to drugs. However, of course, one may be punished for actions such as abusing drugs. If the defendants status "forces" the action because of his or her addiction to drugs, is "forced" by the addiction to purchase and abuse the illegal drug? Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?…