Whitney Vs. Californi Case Study

Title: Chimel v. California Date/Court: United States Supreme Court, 1969 Facts: This case deals with Ted Chimel, who they suspected robbed a local coin shop. On September 13, 1965, several officers from Santa Ana came to the home of Chimel with an arrest warrant for his expected involvement in the burglary. The officers arrived at the door and identified themselves to Chimel’s wife and asked if they could come into the home, she agreed and showed them into the house. While in the house the officers waited 10-15 minutes until Chimel came home from work.

The case of California v. Greenwood involves police who were investigating a potential drug trafficker, Greenwood. The police, who were acting on information that suggested that Greenwood could possibly be engaged in narcotics trafficking, obtained trash that Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his home. Considering the trash included items indicative of narcotics use, the police then obtained warrants to search Greenwood’s home, discovered controlled substances during their searches, and subsequently arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges. The issue in this case was whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of trash left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.

When Muller got fined and convicted, he appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court (Historic U.S. Court Cases: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2).After he appealed the case, the U.S. Supreme Court heard about it and decided to consider in (U.S.Constipedia/Muller-v-Oregon-1908). William D. Wenton, who was Curt’s lawyer, argued that what happened was violated the 14th amendment. Wenton had to write a very long document stating that the rule violated the amendment (U.S. Constipedia/Muller-v-Oregon-1908 (U.S. Constipedia/Muller-v-Oregon-1908). When he presented the documents to the court, he made some very strong and valid points. The points that he made led to the women’s jobs laws being regulated and improved.

In the case of Riley V. California, Mr. Riley was stopped on a traffic violation, which led to his arrest on weapons charges. The officer searching Riley’s incident to arrest seized a cell phone form Riley’s possession. There was information on the phone and repeated use of a term associated with a street gang. Hours later a gang detective examined the phone’s digital contents and based in part on photographs and videos found, the State charged Riley in connection with a shooting that occurred a few weeks earlier. They sought an enhanced sentence based on Riley’s gang membership.

Citation: Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 535 U.S. 234 (2002) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Facts: The Free Speech Coalition which is a non-profit trade association of the pornography and adult entertainment industry in the United States filed suit, against the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA). The child pornography prevention act prohibits and sets penalties for activities such as depicting any visual image of the sexual abuse of minors. This includes pictures, video, and even modified images with the likeness or appearance of a minor engaging in a sexual act. The Promotion, advertisement, and distribution of such works are also prohibited and have consequences.

In the year 1803, an ambivalent, undetermined principle lingered within the governing minds. The government and its “justified” Constitution were thought to be fully explained, until a notion occurred that would bring individuals to question the authority and their limit for empowerment. To end his days as president, John Adams named fifty-eight people from his political party to be federal judges, filing positions created by the Judiciary Act of 1800, under the frequently listed Organic Act. His secretary John Marshall delivered and sealed most of the commissions, however seventeen of them had not yet been delivered before Adams’s departure in 1801. On top of that, Thomas Jefferson refused to appoint those seventeen people because they were

Riley v. California 573 U.S. ____ (2014) By: Jonathan Feltis December 16, 2015 Dr. Bobby Lomeli, AJ12 In 2014, the United States Supreme Court reviewed the case of Riley v. California and a very similar case United States v. Wurie, and decided on June 25, 2014, whether or not the data of a cell phone (smart phone) can be searched incident to arrest without a warrant. Before Riley v. California was decided, information about searching the data of cell phones was vague. There were differing rulings by state and federal courts whether or not police can search a cell phones digital contents without a warrant.

Introduction The people of Skokie, Illinois are in an outrage after receiving news that the ACLU and the Illinois Supreme Court determined that the National Socialist Party of America is protected by the First Amendment. The NSPA is becoming more hated everyday as the people of Skokie are becoming more frustrated for the rights given to these Neo-Nazis. Most people in the Skokie population are people who were directly involved or had relatives in the World War Two. The NSPA is using the First Amendment to protect their act to march in Marquette Park.

The decision stated that the sixth amendment applied to states and now we are (Krajicek, Clarence Gideon

The U.S. Supreme Court has found that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion. This right to privacy has been the justification for decisions involving a wide range of civil liberties cases, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters , which invalidated a successful 1922 Oregon initiative requiring compulsory public education, Griswold v. Connecticut , where a right to privacy was first established explicitly, Roe v. Wade , which struck down a Texas abortion law and thus restricted state powers to enforce laws against abortion, and Lawrence v. Texas , which struck down a Texas sodomy law and thus eliminated state powers to enforce laws against sodomy. The 1890 Warren and Brandeis article "The Right To

The case was first heard in Pennsylvania but once that court ruled the law did not violate the first amendment he appealed and took it to the Supreme Court. In this hearing his main argument was that the law was in direct violation with the constitution which did not tolerate religions benefiting from state laws. The court went over the “three main evils” in order to prevent sponsorship, financial support, and involvement of the sovereign in religious activity. The first of those three tests is that the statute has to have a legislative purpose. Second, the principle must not advance or inhibit religion.

"In controversial decision, the supreme court, by the closest possible margin of a 5 – 4 vote... a person has the right to burn the nations flag." (Page 18 Lines 1 – 3) And "It is, thus, no surprise that the first amendment is where it is in the bill of rights, for it is first in importance." (Page 19 Lines 33 – 34). People could not all agree to let this man go free.

The government appealed the court of appeals decision to bring to the Supreme Court where it is now. I stand with full belief, and the majority opinion of the Supreme Court that Abel Fields’ conviction be overturned. His First Amendment rights had been violated. Even though he was

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

It was a 7 to 1 decision. The decision was that separate but equal was legal as long as no discrimination was shown. They believed that "so long as separate facilities were actually qualitatively equal, the constitution did not prohibit segregation in the view of the majority of the court," as stated in the second