The Case Of New Jersey V. T. L. O.

Case Name, Citation, Year Safford Unified School Dist. #1 v. Redding 557 U.S. 364 (2009) Facts of the Case Redding was an eighth grade student, who was suspected of having over the counter drugs on school grounds. Over the counter drugs on school grounds is a violation of school policy.

Based on these observations they stopped Dickerson and patted him down. The search didn’t reveal any weapons, but the officer did notice a small lump in his jacket and to him it felt like a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane. In the evidence suppression hearing, the trial court likened finding the crack cocaine to the “plain view” doctrine which allows officers to seize evidence of contraband in plain sight during a search for other items. Therefore, the evidence was admissible. Throughout the appeals of the case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed that the initial contact and pat down were valid under Terry, but seizing the cocaine was unconstitutional.

This applies to Sam Wardlow’s situation in which evidence was founded illegally without a proper search warrant. Also, the weapon that was found in Sam’s bag does not relate to any prior crime that may connect him to. This is not in anyway, allowed for officer Nolan to have even stopped Mr.Wardlow. Possibly, if Sam was connected to a crime beforehand and if the officers did have a proper search warrant. Then there is no way Sam’s rights were violated.

People of the State of New York v. Jennifer Jorgensen was criminal court case that went to the Court of Appeals in New York. Judge Pigott gives his/her opinion. Jennifer Jorgensen was 34 weeks on the date of the crime. Defendant was under the influenced of both drugs and alcohol. Jorgensen was driving under the influence on Whiskey Road in Suffolk County.

Facts: The defendant (Defore) was arrested by a police officer for stealing a coat. If he did commit the offense, it was considered a misdemeanor of petit larceny because the overcoat did not cost more than fifty dollars. The defendant was in the hallway of his apartment complex when he was arrested. After Defore was in custody, the arresting police officer went into Defore’s residence and searched it. During his search the officer found a bag, which contained a blackjack (a short, lead-filled club with a flexible handle).

Analysis of Kelo vs. New London The unpopular Supreme Court decision of Kelo vs. New London has broken many citizens trust in having secured property rights. In Kelo vs. New London, the City of New London was condemning the property of several homeowners, in order to sell the land to private developers that would use the land to make a retail condo development. The local government approved the new development in order to gain higher tax revenue and to bring more jobs to the area. Homeowners who believed that their waterfront residence was being unfairly taken contested the City’s actions in court.

Lochner v. New York: Economic Regulation on Trial is Paul Kens’ 1998 concise investigation of the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in Lochner vs. New York case, which gives a complete understanding of the history that lead up to the case and the impact of the ruling. Kens gives a comprehensive account of the many issues that were involved in the Supreme Court’s ruling, including the history that lead up to the case, its effects on later cases, and the overall belief of critics that the justices promoted laissez-faire capitalism and social Darwinism. This book is readable for a wide range of readers from high school level readers to those well versed in legal codes and proceedings. Most learners would find good use of this easy to understand summary of the Lochner v. New York case.

I believe this case should have been taken into consideration in the fact that detective mcfadden was planning on going on the stake out well before he actually did, this giving him time to get a search warrant. The excuse that detective mcfadden was in a hunch was completely ridiculous because he was definitely not in a hunch he had plenty of time to obtained a search warrant from a judge and make sure that the search did not violate the men's 4th

When Weeks was arrested, police officers entered his home without a warrant by using a key and began searching it for evidence. The officers then turned over evidence to the U.S. Marshals that was used to get a conviction. Weeks appealed the conviction which eventually came to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled unanimously that the search violated Weeks rights under the 4th Amendment. This ruling also prevented local police officers from securing evidence by ways that are prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule and giving it to federal investigators.

To which amendment to the constitution does the case relate? Mapp appealed her case to the Supreme Court stating that the 4th Amendment should be incorporated. The 4th Amendment prohibits against unreasonable searches and seizures, and during Mapp’s arrest, the police came to the founding of the evidence presented in the trial without a warranty. Fourth Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the

In this period, the Fourth Amendment was strongly upheld along with the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is made so that police couldn't use any illegally-obtained evidence to convict a defendant. Chief Justice Earl Warren brought the exclusionary rule from local to state-level in the court case of Mapp v. Ohio. In this case, officers forced their way into a home without a search warrant because they suspected Dollree Mapp of hiding an alleged bomber, where they collected evidence so they could use it against him in court. The exclusionary rule was enforced, making none of the evidence found applicable to be used against Mapp in court.

One major court decision during Coolidge’s presidency was Gitlow v. New York. This case started in 1919 when Benjamin Gitlow was arrested in New York for criminal anarchy. This state law made advocating the overthrow of the government by force illegal. Gitlow was arrested for the distribution of a “left-wing manifesto” that encouraged the overthrow of the government by any means necessary. During his trial, Gitlow argued freedom of speech clause of the first amendment and that since no violence actually ensued as a result of this publication, he should not be convicted.

The duty of any criminal prosecutor is to seek justice. A conviction is the end of justice being served prior to sentencing; however justice cannot be served if an innocent person is found guilty. Even though the prosecutor(s) are there to represent the public and has the duty to aggressively pursue offenders for violations of state and federal laws, they shall never lose sight or their own moral compass of their main purpose is to find the truth. In the pursuit of truth, the United States Supreme Court has developed or made rulings in reference to several principles of conduct which have to be followed by all prosecutors to assure that the accused person(s) are allowed the proper procedures and due process of the law granted by the 14th Amendment.

It may seem a little invasive, but schools are permitted to use drug dogs to sniff out contraband during unannounced, random searches and it becomes a controversial problem for all. The use of drug-sniffing dogs in schools is permitted because students do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the school and school search did not go against the Fourth Amendment, which is the right of people to be secure in their personal spaces houses and papers. While drug dogs are becoming more and more commonplace in our public schools and to maintaining a drug-dog program can cost district estimates $12,000 and $36,000 every year. Drug dog must go through a long period of time of training and drug dogs are not dangerous to people, but instead it protects people. Without reservation, we must know the history background, advantages, and disadvantages of having a drug dog searches.

He believed that it was unconstitutional to get an increased sentence based on the evidence that was given. His argument was that according to the due process clause it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury. He claimed it wasn’t constitutional for a judge to make that ruling just based on the evidence presented to him. The main question of this case was whether the fourth amendment requires that an improved maximum prison term for an offense of ten to twenty years be proven with facts beyond the reasonable