Professor Ballone 14 February 2014 Obscenity in Miller v. California Today in our criminal justice system there exists a policy known as “The Miller Test”. The purpose of this test is to determine whether or not a given substance is obscene or not. It is a test that is frequently used today by police‚ and its significance is clearly obvious. The “Miller Test” is a direct result from the outcome of the U.S Supreme Court decision‚ Miller v. California. In this case‚ a local business owner who specialized
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Obscenity Supreme Court of the United States
Robinson v. California‚ 1962 “11721 of the California Health and Safety Code states: “No person shall use‚ or be under the influence of‚ or be addicted to the use of narcotics‚ except when administered by or under the direction of a person licensed by the State to prescribe and administer narcotics. Any person convicted of violating any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be sentenced to serve a term of not less than 90 days nor more than one year in the county jail” (law
Premium United States Law Supreme Court of the United States
Introduction There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law‚ like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact‚ obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific‚ this case deals with what is considered obscene‚ and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment‚ the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth. What brought this case about? In 1973‚ Marvin Miller
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Obscenity Supreme Court of the United States
Traci White-Jones Criminal Law Asst #1 MEMORANDUM QUESTION PRESENTED 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
Premium Law Crime Criminal law
Brandenburg v. Ohio The Supreme Court uses various criteria for the consideration of cases. Not all cases may be chosen by the Supreme Court‚ so they must wisely choose their cases. The Court must be uniform and consistent with the cases they choose according to federal law. "Supreme Court Rule 17‚ Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari ’" (Rossum 28).These rules are obligatory to follow because the Court uses it to grant certiorari. There are four basic rules for Rule 17. First‚ the
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Angela jackson Ap government 9 September 2014 Riley v. California In the case of Riley v California the defendant and petitioner David Leon Riley was arrested August 22‚ 2009‚ after a traffic stop which resulted in the finding of loaded guns in car. The officer stopped riley searched him and took hold of his phone and then searched through messages‚ contacts‚ and photos. The officer charged Riley with an unrelated shooting that had taken place
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Mobile phone
Criminal Justice 1 Case Review October 16‚ 2013 Terry Brice Horton v. California Argued February 21‚ 1990 496 U.S. 128‚ 110 S. Ct. 2301‚ 110 L. Ed. 2d 112 (1990) The defendant’s armed robbery conviction was upheld by the California Supreme Court‚ the defendant then petitioned the writ of certiorari‚ which is a decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court. Justice Stevens then held that “Fourth Amendment does not prohibit warrantless seizure of evidence of crime
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution
Background: Bob Ewell is the father of Mayella Ewell‚ the victim in the Ewell v. Robinson case. Mayella Ewell claims to have been beaten and raped by Negro‚ Tom Robinson. She claims she had him do work for her in the yard and when she went inside to get a nickel to pay him‚ he rushed her whilst her back was turned. She says she turned around and he took control of her and beat and took advantage of her. These claims were blatant lies. The Initial Injuries Sheriff Heck Tate was called up to the
Premium White people To Kill a Mockingbird Black people
The case Miller v. California (1973) was determined by the Supreme Court‚ which redefined the meaning of obscenity. The word obscene is hard to define and could be seen as “You will know it when you see it.” The Miller case determined if something was obscene‚ the average person‚ applying the standards must find the entire work‚ as obscene‚ the work depicts offensive sexual conduct defined by state law‚ and that the work as a whole lacks literary‚ artistic‚ political‚ or scientific value. Marvin
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution First Amendment to the United States Constitution
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…”.
Premium