In the case of Ferguson v. Charleston, S.C. the case was decided correctly. The Supreme Court’s ruling that the Medical University of South Carolina’s (MUSC)drug screening policy was a violation of the fourth amendment was the right decision because the search was indeed unreasonable (Ferguson v. Charleston (99-936) 532 U.S. 67 (2001)). MUSC had created a policy that required all pregnant women who were suspected for: lack of prenatal care, a known history of drug or alcohol abuse, intrauterine fetal death, or abortion placentae drugs, to be tested (Dubin, 1999, pg.279). In 1989, thirty pregnant women who tested positive in the tests, were reported for child abuse to the Charleston police. MUSC and the Charleston police department had created this policy which required pregnant women to be screened and, if they tested positive, prosecuted.
The MUSC policy violated the women’s fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches because the screenings were nonconsensual, they performed without a warrant, and the positive tests were turned over to the police. Under the fourth amendmen...
In this case, the Supreme Court decision in reversing the decision of the trail court. Although the suspects were conducting an illegal crime, the officers were reckless in the procedures in collecting the evidence. In this case, if there was a report or call concerning the drug activities in the apartment, being that the Police Department was conducting a the drug sting, it would have justified the reasoning behind the officers kicking the door in and securing suspects and evidence.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision concluding that Smith et al. were using their religious beliefs and the First Amendment to condone their illegal drug use. In addition the Justices expressed the view that the law applied to the general public, not to just one religious group. Therefore, in a 6-3 decision, the Supr...
This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.
In 1896, the Supreme Court was introduced with a case that not only tested both levels of government, state and federal, but also helped further establish a precedent that it was built off of. This court case is commonly known as the case that confirmed the doctrine “separate but equal”. This doctrine is a crucial part of our Constitution and more importantly, our history. This court case involved the analysis of amendments, laws, and divisions of power. Plessy v. Ferguson was a significant court case in U.S history because it was shaped by federalism and precedent, which were two key components that were further established and clarified as a result of the Supreme Court’s final decision.
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, 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 place to be searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
Homer Plessy vs. the Honorable John H. Ferguson ignited the spark in our nation that ultimately led to the desegregation of our schools, which is shown in the equality of education that is given to all races across the country today. “The Plessy decision set the precedent that ‘separate’ facilities for blacks and whites were constitutional as long as they were ‘equal’” (“The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow”). The case of Plessy vs. Ferguson not only illuminated the racial inequality within our education system, but also brought to light how the standard of ‘separate but equal’ affected every aspect of African American lives.
The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? According to the Fourth Amendment, "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 place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Instead, the court recognized that the right to abortion was guaranteed under personal privacy. Thus, any law regulating abortion in any state across the United States was supposed to be justified by stating any of the compelling state interests. Additionally, any legislative enactment set forth should be tailored in meeting the compelling interests of all parties. The judges also agreed that the right to abortion was unlimited; therefore, it was important for the court to determine a framework that would balance the right to abortion and those of the government (Stewart et al. 307). The latter sought to protect the rights of all mothers and at the same time protect the human life. If the abortion law was completely unregulated, then there would be cases where individuals would practice abortion without factoring the important role of government in conserving life (Saad). As a result, the trimester framework that took the above issues into consideration was conceived. The framework established when the fundamental rights of women to issues relating abortion became absolute. It also established when the state's interests were more compelling than the rights of the woman. In the first trimester, the Court left the decision to the woman and the physicians. However, after the first trimester or at the end of the first trimester when fetal viability had been established, the state had a right to protect the health of the mother as well as the unborn child (Saad). The state was also required to regulate all abortion procedures so that they became reasonable. The procedures were supposed to protect and preserve maternal health. At the third trimester, the state interest would become compelling since the viability of the fetus becomes compelling. In such cases, the state has the right to regulate abortion to protect human life. Also, the
The primary thing that persuaded my current viewpoint on race relations was the George Zimmerman trial for the homicide of Trayvon Martin. This was a case that took place when I was relatively young, around the age of ten, so I feel that the event has shaped the way that I view racism today. My mother studied racism for her degree, so I was never particularly ignorant about the topic of race. However, the Trayvon Martin case was the first time in my life that I could remember a blatant and publicized act of racial injustice. Hence, it provided evidence and validation for all the things that I had been taught about race up until this point. However, it further influenced the way I viewed race because it allowed me to see specifically see the
Stop and Frisk is a procedure put into use by the New York Police Department that allows an officer to stop and search a “suspicious character” if they consider her or him to be. The NYPD don’t need a warrant, or see you commit a crime. Officers solely need to regard you as “suspicious” to violate your fourth amendment rights without consequences. Since its Beginning, New York City’s stop and frisk program has brought in much controversy originating from the excessive rate of arrest. While the argument that Stop and Frisk violates an individual’s fourth amendment rights of protection from unreasonable search and seizure could definitely be said, that argument it’s similar to the argument of discrimination. An unfair number of Hispanics and
Overall, the ruling in this case was a perfect interpretation of the Constitution. Despite opposition claiming that it is not addressed in the Constitution, too few rights are ever addressed in the Constitution of the United States. That is why there is a thing called Judicial Review. By utilizing judicial review, the interpreters of the law –Supreme Court, may make changes to policies and laws. Abortion, medicinal marijuana, and marriage fall under the umbrella of Equal Protection since they correspond to the rights and liberties of US citizens.
Declared in the U.S. Constitution every American or should it be person, is guaranteed civil rights. Civil rights did not just consist of “freedom of speech and assembly,” but as well as “the right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law, and procedural guarantees in criminal and civil rights,” (Dawood). It was not until 1791, that the Bill of Rights was appended to the constitution, which helped clarify these rights to citizens. “Rights were eventually applied against actions of the state governments in a series of cases decide by the Supreme Court,” Dawood stated. In previous years (1790-1803), the Supreme Court had little say in decisions being made by government. As time went on the Supreme Court took on more responsibility and started making additional decisions, which in time helped minorities gain their civil rights. It took a couple of years, as a matter of fact till the 1900’s for the Supreme Court to get out of the “ideology of white supremacy and the practice of racism,” (Smith). Though the decisions of the Supreme Court were not all that appreciated in the beginning, following the 20th century the court really facilitated in the advancements of civil rights.
Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.
In 1970, Norma McCorvey, a single and pregnant woman in Texas wanted to get an abortion. The state laws of Texas at that time stated that it was illegal to have an abortion in Texas. Even though the state told her that she could go to one of the four states in which abortion was legal to have the procedure done, she decided that she could not afford to travel to another state to receive the procedure. Norma McCorvey decided that she would sue the state of Texas, claiming that her constitutional rights were being taken from her. She then changed her name to the pseudonym “Jane Roe” to protect her right of privacy. The district court found that Roe did have grounds to file the suit against the state of Texas. They ruled on the grounds that the abortion laws in Texas infringed on the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments of the constitution. The first amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html). The fourth amendment states that, “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 place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”
The articles "Freedom of Speech: Missouri Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kansas City" and "Freedom of Religion: Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association" both engage in conflicts pertaining to the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.