Search and Seizure Portfolio In his article Florida v. Harris: Turning Police Dogs into Search Warrants on a Leash‚ John Whitehead questions the intentions of both police officers and Supreme Court judges‚ who seem to be condoning and ruling in favor of unconstitutional searches of American citizens. The criteria for what qualifies as probable cause has now been left up to the judgement of an officer. With variance in why a search should be conducted‚ Americans are left in the dark when it comes
Premium Police Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Lemon v. Kurtzman ‚ 403 U.S. 602 (1971) Historical Setting While Americans were under British control‚ they were forced to pay Anglican church taxes‚ attend church services‚ and follow church rules. After the Revolution‚ American forefathers conveyed their opposition to this British law through the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution‚ forbidding government establishment of religion and guaranteeing freedom to practice religion. In 1968‚ Pennsylvania passed the Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The second of the Supreme Court Cases to be discussed is Miranda V. Arizona. The importance of this case is that Miranda was interrogated without knowledge of his 5th amendment rights. In this specific case‚ the police arrested Miranda from his home in order to take him into investigation at the Phoenix police station. While Miranda was put on trial‚ he was not informed that he had a right to an attorney. From this the officers were able to retrieve a signed written statement from Miranda. Most importantly
Premium
9th Amendment Certain rights‚ shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people Court Case Significance Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. She and her colleague were convicted for giving a married couple tips on how to prevent contraception. In a 7-2 decision it was decided that the constitution from the the bill of rights 1‚3‚4‚ and 9th amendments together create a right for marital privacy
Premium Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Roe v. Wade Supreme Court of the United States
May 5‚ 2011 Majority Opinion Case: Morse V Frederick After reviewing the case of Morse v Frederick‚ on a vote of 4-0‚ the court concluded that the school officials did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it. On January 24‚ 2002‚ Principal Deborah Morse of Juneau-Douglass High School created a school-sanctioned event. This event allowed students to participate in the Olympic Torch Relay. The torch was on its way to Salt
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
(Cheeseman2013) In the case of Cunningham v. Hastings‚ Mr. Hastings and Mrs. Cunningham‚ was an unmarried couple‚ purchased a home together. Mr. Hastings put $45‚000 down payment toward the home out of his pocket. When it came to how the deed established the deed stated Hastings Cunningham as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. The couple occupied the property jointly. When the relationship between the two ended‚ Mr. Hastings seized sole possession of the property. Mrs. Cunningham filed
Premium Law Legal terms United States
ARGUMENT UNDER THE OHIO UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT (“OUTSA)‚ A COMPUTER PROGRAM THAT‚ DERVIVES INDEPENDENT ECONOMIC VALUE‚ IS NOT BEING GENERALY KNOWN TO OTHER PERSONS‚ AND IS SUNBJECT TO EFFORTS OF SECRECY IS A TRADE SECRET. I. DCH is entitled to preliminary injunction‚ because LH is a trade secret under OUTSA. Preliminary injunctions should always be granted in case as like this‚ where there is a substantial likelihood that the plaintiffs will prevail on the merits. Vanguard Transp. Sys. V. Edwards
Premium Patent Law United States
Arizona v. Gant (2009) SCOTUS rule held that the Belton rule was revised as the justices stated that it did not give authority for the police officers to search an arrestee’s vehicle if the occupant had been arrested and therefore could not access the interior of the car. This implies that the police should only search the arrestee and places that could be reached. Gant could no longer reach the interior of his car‚ and there was no reasonable ground to suppose that a search would produce evidence
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Strayer University Terry v Ohio LEG 420 Lisa Silva In this case John Terry was seen by an officer‚ seeming to be casing a store for a robbery. “The Petitioner‚ John W. Terry was stopped and searched by an officer after the officer observed the Petitioner seemingly casing a store for a potential robbery. The officer approached the Petitioner for questioning and decided to search him first.” The officer finally decided to approach the men for questioning‚ after observing them for quite a long
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Police Supreme Court of the United States
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier I‚ _______‚ agree that school officials should be able to remove student publications when they believe material is unsuitable for younger students‚ or for reasons it could possibly disrupt the educational curriculum. If students are allowed "freedom of speech" other students could be slandered indirectly such as what occured in this case or fights may ensue due to disagreements. Yes‚ we as Americans have rights to speak our minds freely‚ but most students are minors and
Premium Education First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States