Lawrence v. Texas
In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public attention and quite a large number of briefs were filed in the cases.
History
The petitioners
John Geddes Lawrence (medical technologist, 60 years old) and Tyron Garner (barbecue vendor, 36 years old) were the petitioners in the case. They were found by the police at the moment they were having sex in the apartment of Lawrence in the Houston on September 17 in 1998 . They were arrested by the sheriff's deputy who entered the apartment which was not locked with the weapon and arrested both men.
As it was found out later, the arrest was the result of the false report provided by the man who claimed that Lawrence possessed weapons at his home. The report was filed by the neighbor Roger David Nance (41 years old) and he has already been accused before for the similar complaints. The above cause to enter the house, however, was not considered to be the issue in the case hearing and Nance admitted that he provided false report.
Position of petitioners
Lawrence and Gardner ...
... middle of paper ...
...ection against the government. Others believe that courts must be more active and open to expand the ideas of liberty even if it is required to strike down the majoritarian law in order to protect the minority group from government interference.
As with all Supreme Court cases, the meaning of the Lawrence v. Texas will deepen when in the process of its interpretation as well when it is cited by the lower state courts and The Supreme Court itself. In any situation, the decision in the case contains the brave declaration of the dignity and freedom of choice of all homosexual individuals. It was celebrated by the homosexual activists fighting for the equal rights in the hope that the future legal advances may follow. Social conservatives have deplored the decision for the same reason. Nevertheless, the ruling of the Court was neutral, therefore it was fair.
A forty-six-year-old man named Lawrence M. Bradford had filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Syracuse, New York. Bradford claimed that police officers Chad D. Frederick and Shane M. Ryan entered his residence without a warrant, although his roommate Shara Bixby, let the officers into the house. Mr. Bradford said that the officers forced Shara Bixby into letting them into the residence after she had told police that he was not home. The two officers were there to arrest Mr. Bradford for his part in the assault of another man. Bradford pleaded guilty in Jefferson County Court in August 2013 to second-degree assault. Mr. Bradford and another man was accused of stealing money and property from Jeffrey Jewett in Watertown, New York, while striking him on the head and body, causing a cut above the victim’s
The Case of Arizona v. Hicks took place in 1986; the case was decided in 1987. It began on April 18th 1984, with a bullet that was shot through the floor in Hick’s apartment; it had injured a man in the room below him. An investigation took place. Officers were called to the scene. They entered Mr. Hicks’ apartment and discovered three weapons and a black stocking mask.
Abstract On June 26, 2015 a divided Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples could now marry nationwide. At the time of the split ruling there were 9 supreme court justices, 5 of the justices were Republicans, and the remaining 4 were Democrats. In high profile cases it is except that the justices will vote along party lines. When the 5-4 ruling was reveled by the following statement. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right (Corn,2015).” written by
Even though he was not convicted for the rape, the evidence clearing him of rape, stood for the robbery too, as they were both connected. In 1979, two black assailants forced a man and a woman at gun point into the man’s car at a drive-in grocery store. As they were going down the highway, the perpetrators robbed both victims, then forced the man out of the car. After a failed escape attempt by the woman, the two men drove her to a nearby park where they raped her.
The case, Kansas v. Cheever, came about after Scott D. Cheever murdered Sheriff Matthew Samuels on January 19th, 2005. Samuels was with two of his deputies at the Cooper home in a rural part of Greenwood County, Kansas to execute a warrant for Scott Cheever’s arrest when Cheever shot and killed him. After Cheever was arrested, he was charged with capital murder and attempted capital murder and was also charged with various other drug charges and criminal possession of firearms. Cheever was first on trial in federal court because it was a capital case and Kansas had just ruled Capital punishment unconstitutional and was under then under review. Cheever used a voluntary intoxication defense claiming he was so high on methamphetamines he could not have premeditated the murder. In return the court ordered a mental...
The opinion of the court was held by Justice Kennedy, in that the Colorado amendment was held unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment on the United States Constitution. Kennedy argued the amendment singles out a specific group in which, it would make it so only homosexuals cannot receive the protective rights that are available to anyone else. This idea makes homosexuals unequal to everyone else because they are not guaranteed the same protection that anyone else could get if they needed it. Furthermore, the amendment burdens the homosexual community by not allowing them to seek protection against discrimination though the use of legislation. Additionally, Kennedy claims “In and ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest…” (632) By this he means that a law will be considered valid as long as it has a ...
In an article written by a Senior student they discuss a monumental moment in Mexican American history concerning equality in the South. The student’s paper revolves around the Pete Hernandez V. Texas case in which Hernandez receives a life in prison sentence by an all white jury. The essay further discusses how Mexican Americans are technically “white” americans because they do not fall into the Indian (Native American), or black categories and because of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848. The student’s paper proceeds to discuss the goals connecting the Hernandez V. Texas case which was to secure Mexican American’s right within the fourteenth amendment [1].
On October 3, 1974, around 10:45 pm the Memphis Police got a call about a "prowler inside call." Police officers Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright were dispatched to answer the call. Upon arriving at the scene, there was a woman standing on her porch and gesturing toward the house next door, she told them she had heard glass breaking and that "they" or "someone" was breaking in next door. While Wright radioed in, Hymon went back behind the house. He heard a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The fleeing suspect, who was Edward Garner, stopped at a 6-feet-high chain link fence at the edge of the yard. With the use of a flashlight, Hymon was able to see Garner's face and hands there was no sign of a weapon, although Hymon was not certain that Garner was unarmed. He thought Garner was either 17 or 18 years old and about 5' 5" or 5' 7" tall. While Garner was crouched at the base of the fence, Hymon called out "police, halt" and took a few steps toward him and Garner then began to climb over the fence. Convinced that, if Garner made it over...
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
He was sentenced to twenty years. In Honolulu, a man was beaten to death by a group of teenagers in a public shower because they believed he was gay. They were sentenced to five years in custody. In September, a transgender female was stabbed repeatedly with a broken beer bottle and set on fire. Christopher Lopez and Christopher Chavez spent five months in jail before all charges were dropped by the Fresno Police Department.
The extents of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution has been long discussed since its adoption in mid-late 1800s. Deciding cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade has been possible due to mentioned amendment. These past cases not only show the progression of American society, but also highlights the degree of versatility that is contained within the amendment. Now, in 2015, the concerns are not of racial segregation or abortion, the extent of the amendment was brought to a new field: same-sex marriage. In Obergefell v Hodges, we can see the epitome of the Equal Protection Clause.
Following the arrest on January 8th of 1992 the trial began August 18, 1992. The state had two factors that played a part in trial. One being Johnny Everett Webb a fellow inmate, with Cameron Willingham in Navarro County Jail. The second major factor being testimonies from investigators Vasquez and Frogg on what they believed happened that night. The prosecutors believed that Cameron willingly tried to murder his children by setting his home on fire. Cameron Willingham never changed his story and always seemed to be innocent. Willingham was found guilty on the grounds of the testimony that the forensic experts gave at court because a former inm...
On the 11th of June, 1982 following the conviction of a criminal offense, Robert Johnson was sentenced to two years probation. The terms of his probation included his person, posessions, and residence being searched upon reasonable request. When a search warrant was executed for Johnson’s roommate, officers testified that with enough reasonable suspicion, they were able to search Johnson’s living area as well.
In July 2003, Sheriff’s Deputy Todd Shanks of Multnomah County Oregon was performing a routine traffic stop on a vehicle driven by William Barrett. During this stop, Shanks arrested Barrett because of an outstanding warrant and then searched the car. A pressure-cooker found in the trunk was believed to be used in the making of methamphetamine. Barrett informed Shanks that the owner of the pressure-cooker was “Gunner Crapser,” and that he could be found at the Econolodge Motel in a room registered to a woman named Summer Twilligear (FindLaw, 2007, Factual and Procedural Background section, para. 2). Deputy Shanks quickly learned that there was an outstanding warrant for a “Gunner Crapser” but to not confuse the wanted man, whose name was not actually “Gunner Crapser,” with someone else using this name.
DNA testing with the help of the Gov. Lastly, Butler was released in January 2000 and