Olmstead V. United States: A Case Study

Case Identification: 428 U.S. 153; 96 S. Ct. 2909; 49 L. Ed. 2d 859; No. 74-6257; Gregg v. Georgia. It was argued on March 31, 1976 and was decided on July 2, 1976. Facts: The defendant, Troy Gregg, sought the review of the decision from the Supreme Court of Georgia, which affirmed the opinion that the death penalty is not a violation of the eighth and fourteenth amendments. Gregg was charged with armed robbery and murder.

In 1875, John Smith was unjustly arrested for an assault charge placed against him by his wife and the mother of his children. It began with a standard marital argument that included subjects such finances, the husbands sporadic work schedule and the wife’s claim that the John Smith’s drinking only made their problems worse. Mr. Smith told his wife that “he had not been drinking and that if (she) did not shut up that he would hit her”(Smith). Mrs. Smith continued to shout at her husband, all the while being in front of their child and the neighbors child. Mr. Smith then proceeded to walk over to a pile of kindling wood and a picked a piece about (roughly two inches in diameter) and then proceeded to walk back over to his wife with the piece

Gideon V. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963) is the case I have chose to brief. According to US courts website “Clarence Earl Gideon was an unlikely hero. He was a man with an eighth-grade education who ran away from home when he was in middle school. He spent much of his early adult life as a drifter, spending time in and out of prisons for nonviolent crimes. ”The Petitioner within the case was Clarence Earl Gideon.

In U.S. v. Jones, Antoine Jones owned a popular nightclub in the District of Columbia. As the police department and FBI had reasonable suspicion to believe that cocaine trafficking was taking place in the club, law enforcement enabled strict surveillance. The strict surveillance consisted of cameras around the nightclub, officers obtained a warrant to implement device to register phone numbers of anyone calling Jones or calls Jones made and installed a wiretapping device. In addition, the officers installed a GPS tracking device in Jones vehicle, to install this device the officers had to obtained a warrant that allowed the GPS to be installed for ten days in the District of Columbia. However, as the car traveled to Maryland the officers changed

Worcester v. Georgia By Sydney Stephenson Worcester v. Georgia is a case that impacted tribal sovereignty in the United States and the amount of power the state had over native American territories. Samuel Worcester was a minister affiliated with the ABCFM (American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions). In 1827 the board sent Worcester to join its Cherokee mission in Georgia. Upon his arrival, Worcester began working with Elias Boudinot, the editor of the Cherokee Phoenix (the first Native American newspaper in the United States) to translate religious text into the Cherokee language. Over time Worcester became a close friend of the Cherokee leaders and advised them about their political and legal rights under the Constitution and federal-Cherokee treaties.

Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbras of the first amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers “in any house” in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment in its self-incrimination clause enables the citizens to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his determent.

This memorandum is written in response to your September 1, 2015 request for information regarding the case of Samuel V. Morgan. The analysis will show that Samuel is liable to pay the fine. Robert is a senior weight lifter and member of the Alpha Chapter, Beta Phi Gamma Fraternity, Inc. at Howard University. Although he is strong, he is extremely slow moving which forces him to limit himself to fighting with people who are considerably smaller than he.

Business Law Case Study Essay: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S (2014) Facts: The Green family runs and owns Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and skills chain that has over 500 stores and they have over 13,000 employees. Other facts of the case are that the Green family has been able to organize the business around the values of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company as told by Biblical principles, one of which is the belief that the utilization of contraception is wicked. Also, the facts show that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), occupation -founded group health care plans must offer certain sorts of preventative care, for example, FDA-accepted contraceptive approaches.

“On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Roe v. Wade, a challenge to a Texas statute that made it a crime to perform an abortion unless a woman’s life was at stake. The case had been filed by “Jane Roe,” an unmarried woman who wanted to safely and legally end her pregnancy. Siding with Roe, the court struck down the Texas law. In its ruling, the court recognized for the first time that the constitutional right to privacy “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy” (Roe v. Wade, 1973).

The Right to Abortion On January 22, 1973, in a 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down it’s landmark decision in the case of Roe v. Wade, which recognized that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s right to make her own personal medical decisions — including the decision to have an abortion without interference from politicians (Planned Parenthood). There are many moments in history when Roe v. Wade has been so close to being overturned, yet it is still in place. Abortion should stay legal, or not overturned, for the health of women everywhere. First, this important case took place at the time of abortion being illegal in most states, including Texas, where Roe v. Wade began.

Without privacy there is not trust or respect between the citizens and their government. While the Michigan Constitution does not specifically address privacy, it does mention is in smaller parts. The Michigan Constitution protects its citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the respect for privacy throughout the criminal justice process. The U.S. Constitution holds about the same amount of implied right to privacy as the Michigan Constitution. The U.S. Constitution also protects its citizens from unreasonable searches and

The motivations for anti-abortion laws varied from state to state. But in 1973 the supreme court “recognized that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s right to make her own personal medical decisions — including the decision to have an abortion without interference from politicians. ”(Planned Parenthood Roe) This was called Roe v. Wade.

Also, in this era, “Feds are not likely to ask to stay in your homes unlike how it was consistent during the revolutionary.” They won’t ask because during the old times, the police and army didn’t do anything before the people who joined were misfits and former slaves. ConstitutionCenter.org also stated, “This amendment is the only one that deals with privacy directly.” This means that out of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, there is only one that deals with privacy. Finally, this

The appellants claimed that the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1879 violated the Fourteenth Amendment and couple’s right to privacy. Issue: Did the Connecticut statue violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and did the Constitution therefore protect the privacy of married couples? Decision of the Court: The Supreme Court did rule the the Connecticut statue was indeed unconstitutional

56. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989): The Court upheld Missouri restrictions on abortions that “public employees and public facilities were not to be used in performing or assisting abortions unnecessary to save the mother 's life; encouragement and counseling to have abortions was prohibited; and physicians were to perform viability tests upon women in their twentieth (or more) week of pregnancy.” It was a fractured decision that seemed to contradict Roe v. Wade but the court decided to not revisit any parts of Roe v. Wade after this case. The Missouri restrictions did not violate the right to privacy or the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.