Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Criminal Procedure and the Constitution September 13‚ 2012 Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Facts: In Mapp v. Ohio (1961)‚ the police thought Dollree Mapp was hiding a suspect they were looking for in connection with building a bomb. The police officers lied and said they had a search warrant of which they did not and forced their way into Mapp’s home and searched it. While searching the home‚ the police found evidence‚ not for a bomb‚ but of pornographic material that violated
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
Milosz v. Pienkowski Paper “These damn Jews! They’re rotten and don’t belong here! We need to remove them all from Poland and send them to concentration camps!” “Whoah. You are misinformed about the history of your own country. Firstly‚ the Jews definitely belong here. For centuries Poland has had the largest and most prominent Jewish population in the world. Although religious tolerance did end with the partitioning of Poland by the Russian empire‚ Judaism is still extremely prevalent
Premium Jews Judaism
Abortion The U.S. Supreme Court declared abortion to be a “fundamental right” guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution in the 1973 abortion case Roe v. Wade (www.abortionprocon.org). This ruling was based on the Constitution giving “a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy‚” and also “This right to privacy… is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” The U.S. abortion debate has raged on ever since this decision‚ making it a huge religious‚ political
Premium Abortion Pregnancy Fetus
Arizona v. Gant PALS480-Capstone June 20‚ 2012 The Parties • Plaintiff – State of Arizona • Defendant – Rodney Gant • Appellant – State of Arizona • Respondent – Rodney Gant Procedural History • Respondent‚ Rodney Gant‚ was arrested for driving with a suspended license. Subsequent to the search of the Gant’s vehicle officers found cocaine in the back seat. At trial Gant moved to have the evidence suppressed denied that there was probable cause to search the vehicle‚ but did
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Bowers v. Hardwick United States Supreme Court Opinion This case‚ Bowers v. Hardwick‚ originated when Michael Hardwick was targeted by a policer officer for harassment in Georgia. A houseguest of Hardwick’s let the officer into his home‚ where Hardwick was found engaging in oral sex with his partner‚ who was another male. Michael Hardwick was arrested and charged of sodomy. After charges were later dropped‚ Hardwick brought his case to the Supreme Court to have the sodomy law declared unconstitutional
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Law
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
perform the greatest ability to protect all members of a society. In the case of Miranda v Arizona‚ the courts had to decide whether or not a man was deprived of his freedoms while in police custody. Basically Miranda v Arizona completely changed the way police apprehend and interrogate suspects. However it was not only Miranda‚ but many other instances where the majority has not protected all minorities. Vignera v New York was another similar instance where a suspect was forced to sign statements
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States Police
Mapp v. Ohio‚ 1961 According to the Court’s decision‚ why may illegally seized evidence not be used in a trial? Justice Tom C. Clark wrote on the courts behalf saying that it was logically and constitutionally necessary that the exclusion doctrine be insisted upon‚ even in the states. This doctrine is essential to the right of privacy‚ therefore evidence that is found illegally without a warrant must not be used in a trial‚ for this would be unconstitutional. Why‚ according to Justice
Premium Law United States United States Constitution
Alexa Englert Advanced legal writing unit 3 Kaplan University 11/5/11 Polovchak v. Meese‚ 774 F.2d 731 (1985)‚ Facts: U.S.S.R. citizens Michael and Anna Polovchak came to the United States with their three children and settled in Chicago. The Polovchaks decided to return to the U.S.S.R. at which time their older children Nataly who was 17‚ and Walter who was 12‚ went to live at their cousin’s house not wanting to leave the Unites States with their parents. Nataly and Walters parents sought
Free United States Appeal
In Rochefoucauld v Boustead (1897)‚ Lindley LJ said ‘that the Statute of Frauds does not prevent the proof of a fraud; and that it is a fraud on the part of the person to whom the land is conveyed as a trustee‚ and who knows it was so conveyed‚ to deny the trust and claim the land himself’. Section 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925 provides that ‘a declaration of trust respecting any land or any interest therein must be manifested and proved by some writing signed by some person who is
Premium Trust law