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
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
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
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
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
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
Wonjung Hwang Mr. Chonko English 10 Period 3 19 November 2012 Locker Searches We’ve all seen enough crime shows to know what to do if the police knock on your door and demand to search your property: stand‚ look indignant and demand to see their warrant. After all‚ it’s your property‚ and unless you give permission or a judge orders the search‚ you should have control over what you have‚ right? Yes—provided you’re not a student. If you’re in a school environment‚ teachers and administrators
Premium Education High school The Lockers
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. Hodari tried to suppress the evidence relating
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
Schmerber v. California Case Brief Schmerber v. California 384 U.S. 757 (1966) FACTS: Armando Schmerber‚ the petitioner‚ had been arrested for drunk driving while receiving treatment for injuries in a hospital. During his treatment‚ a police officer smelled liquor on petitioner’s breath and noticed other symptoms of drunkenness so the officer ordered a doctor to take a blood sample which indicated that Schmerber had been drunk while driving. The blood test was introduced as
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Appeal United States
Fernandez v. California: Fourth Amendment Upheld? POL 303 August 4‚ 2013 The Merit case of Fernandez v. California is seeking to determine whether the Constitutional rights of Walter Fernandez were violated under the 4th Amendment when law enforcement conducted a search of his residence upon obtaining consent from his girlfriend‚ who was also a resident‚ after Fernandez was taken into custody (and had stated his objections to the search while at the scene). In Georgia v. Randolph (2006)
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States