Wisconsin v. Avery is a major case between Steven A. Avery and the state of Wisconsin. Steven Avery was born on July 9, 1962 and grew up in a very small area knows as Manitowoc county in the state of Wisconsin. His family owns an auto salvage yard where abandoned vehicles are obtained for the sale of parts. Avery was not a smart man, his IQ was seventy and he “barely functioned in school”. He had a very rough childhood and he turned to crime through his teens and into his twenties. In 1981, Avery and and his friend were charged with burglary at a local bar and were each sentenced to two years in…
Facts: Police officers were in pursuit of a suspected drug dealer, and were led to an apartment complex. The officers ended up outside of a certain apartment, were the smell of marijuana emanated. The police knocked loudly, and from inside the apartment they heard movement, and the police believed that the sounds were an indication that evidence was being destroyed. The police announced their intent to enter the apartment, kicked the door down to find drugs and drug paraphernalia in plain sight, and arrested King and others. They continued to search the apartment and came across other evidence. King argued that due to the officers not having a warrant…
4)The case we read in class that I enjoyed the most was State of Connecticut v. Cardwell. I primarily liked it because it best exemplifies the difference and complexity regarding the sale of goods and the helps reflect the distinction between a “shipment” and “destination” contracts. I disagree with the trial courts judgment that Cardwell sold tickets within Connecticut and thereby violated Connecticut statute. However, I agree with the judgment of the court after the appeal. The transfer of goods occurred in Massachuestes, therefore the sale of the tickets, as defined by the code, occurred in Massachusts.…
Mapp vs. ohio: The surrounding of the case was the police came in her house try to find a bomb suspect they found the bomb suspect but they also found pornograph pics of her self so she was arrested that day. The supreme court's decision was that when a police officer is searching you or your house they have to specify what they are looking for. The courts decision maid a big change because the cops if they come in your house looking for a gun but they find a knife they cant arrest you for it because they have to specify what they are looking for.…
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 1081, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961)…
The case originated back in October 1963, involving John W. Terry and Richard Chilton. The two men were seen on a corner by veteran police detective, Martin McFadden, of the Cleveland Police Department, Ohio. According to the officer, the two men were acting in a suspicious way, by peering into the same store window. The two men were seen making multiple trips toward the window, when a third man came into the scenario. The officer suspected the men of “casing” the store for robbery. The officer followed the men and then stopped and questioned them. He first grabbed Terry and conducted a pat down and located a pistol on the inside of his jacket. Finding the weapon, he ordered the men into the nearby store, where a more invasive search ensued. He then removed Terry’s jacket and removed the weapon from its holster. A weapon was also found on Chilton, and both were charged with carrying concealed weapons.…
Facts- Detroit police obtained a warrant authorizing a search for drugs and firearms at the home of Booker Hudson. When police arrived to execute the warrant, they announced their presence but waited “three to five seconds” before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson’s home. Police discovered large quantities of drugs, including cocaine rocks in Hudson’s pocket and a loaded gun placed in between the cushion and armrest of a chair in which he was sitting.. Hudson was charged under Michigan law with unlawful drug and firearm possession. Hudson moved to suppress the evidence.…
The Tarasoff case is the case that “established a clinician’s duty to warn” (Mottarella, n.d.). Prosenjit Poddar, a student at University of California Berkeley (UCAL) was a patient of Dr. Lawrence Moore, a psychologist a hospital affiliated with UCAL. Poddar was seeking treatment for an emotional breakdown after being romantically rejected by Tatiana Tarasoff. In the course of therapy Poddar related to Dr. Moore his intent to kill Tarasoff that fall. Dr. Moore conferred with his superiors at the facility and the determination, customary at that time, was made to have Poddar involuntarily committed. Dr. Moore notified the campus police and requested that Poddar be picked up, warning that Poddar can appear quite rational at times. Campus…
Florida v. Bostick was a felony drug trafficking case which set precedence to the legality of random police searches of passengers aboard public buses and trains pertaining to said passenger’s fourth amendment rights. Shortly after boarding a bus departing from Miami headed for Atlanta, Terrance Bostick was approached by members of the Broward County Sheriffs department acting as part of a drug interception task force and without particularly suspicion was questioned by officers. Broward county sheriff officers advised Mr. Bostick of his right to not consent to a search of his personal belongings and then asked his permission to carry out the search. Terrance Bostick granted sheriffs officers request by consenting to the search which revealed a felonious amount…
Branzburg v. Hayes was the only ever supreme court case to deal with reporter’s privilege. The ruling of this case was that reporter’s had no right to hide their sources in a court case. The chief justice at the time,Warren Burger, made a point that reporters, “like other citizens, [must] respond to relevant questions put to them in the course of a valid grand jury investigation or criminal trial (Fargo,2010).” With a decision that was five for and four against, this case was not an open and shut many thought it to be. Calling into play a look at the first amendment and what it really means when it says the freedom of speech. Interpreting a document that is more than two hundred years old is not an easy task to accomplish, having to combine…
The case of Thompson versus Oklahoma raises a number of issues regarding the trials and punishment of juveniles for heinous crimes. This case was argued on November 9, 1987 and involves the trial of fifteen-year-old William Wayne Thompson. Along with his older brother and two friends, William Thomspon brutally murdered Charles Keene, his sister’s husband. His motive was revenge for abusing his sister. William Thompson was a “child” according to Oklahoma law, but he was tried as an adult, convicted with murder, and sentenced to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma upheld this ruling. Because he was only fifteen years old at the time of the murder, this ruling violated the Eighth Amendment, causing this case to be brought to the Supreme…
The Terry v. Ohio case took place on December 12th of 1976. The case was filed by John Terry who claimed that his arrest resulted from an invasion of his privacy. Terry believed that Officer McFadden violated his 4th Amendment rights, which protect citizens of the United States from unlawful searches and seizures conducted by police officers or law enforcement agents.…
Terry v. Ohio was a court decision made in 1968 that still affects how police conduct their operations to this day. This case gave special liberties to police officers which would otherwise be in conflict with the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states " the right of the people to be secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized. " The Supreme Court's decision allowing reasonable suspicion of a crime can be grounds for a search, even without probable cause.…
A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity, whereas an arrest requires "probable cause" that a suspect committed a criminal offense. The name comes from the standards established in a 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.1. The issue in the case was whether police should be able to detain a person and subject him to a limited search for weapons without probable cause for arrest. The court held that police may conduct a limited search of a person for weapons that could endanger the officer or those nearby, even in the absence of probable cause for arrest and any weapons seized may be introduced in evidence. When a police officer observes…
The meaning of stop and frisk is, the situation in which a police officer who is suspicious of an individual detains the person and runs his hands lightly over the suspect's outer garments to determine if the person is carrying a concealed weapon or contraband. One of the most controversial police procedures is the stop and frisk search. This type of limited search occurs when police confront a suspicious person in an effort to prevent a crime from taking place. The police frisk (pat down) the person for weapons and question the person.…