In the words of former president George W. Bush, “Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." In the case between Michelle Dorsey and the Family Court of Livingston County, Michigan, however, it seems that families are where our nation finds privacy—or perhaps not. In this case, Michelle Dorsey’s custody of her child Tyler Dorsey is under question after Tyler’s long bout of judicial delinquency. Michelle’s own testimony regarding her prior drug use placed her under scrutiny by the Family Court, and she was later required to submit a drug test. The results of this test would determine whether Michelle was a fit parent capable of maintaining custody over Tyler. In regards to this case, multiple factors must be observed …show more content…
The rationale behind this is that family courts follow the “the golden rule” in which “the court must always act in the best interest of the child or children in a case” (Boyd Law). Further rationalizations behind this are the rights granted by the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment in which governments cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law; that includes both Michelle Dorsey and Tyler Dorsey. If Tyler’s mother is incapable of being a positive parent, creating his chronic delinquency as a result, one may argue that he is being deprived of life and liberty, which may introduce a compelling enough government interest in order to rationalize Michelle Dorsey’s drug test. Dorsey might argue that her own liberty was being infringed upon as she was not formally convicted of a crime. This argument becomes invalid in light of Dorsey’s testimony and the concept of suspicion and probable cause, which will be discussed …show more content…
Miller. In this case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in the majority opinion that Georgia’s drug testing standards did not meet the suspicionless exception placed by the National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab. However, the individuals that were being tested were governmental officials without a history of substance abuse and therefore differ from Dorsey’s case and cannot be held to the same standard. Lastly, there is the argument that there is not enough evidence to warrant a warrantless search. However, Dorsey’s testimony counts as evidence. While this would not be enough to convict her of a crime, a positive drug test would. However, the challenge lies in receiving that information from Dorsey, who has refused to take the drug test. If Dorsey continued to refuse, it may be best for the Court to issue a warrant using the probable cause presented in Dorsey’s
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.
According to many the custody of a child should be determined with the best interest of the child in mind. However, it is not easy for a judge to make such an important decision in such a short amount of time with limited information. Smith (2004) stated that, the simple fact of being a mother does not indicate a willingness or capacity to render a quality of care different than that which a father can provide. Some might argue that what Reynolds (2004) calls deadbeat dads, or in other words fathers who refuse to pay their child support, are often times confused with Turnips, who are ex-spouses who can not afford to pay child support. One example of a turnip is a father who is in prison; he is obviously not making money while he is on the inside. Now an example of a deadbeat dad is when the father is enjoying all the finer things in life and he cannot reach far enough into his...
The Court held that because of the “special facts” the “attempt to secure evidence of blood-alcohol content in this case was an appropriate incident to petitioner’s arrest.” Under current jurisprudence, we would construe the language about “special facts” as relating to the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment – which resists categorical rules – and instead focuses on the need for the intrusion and the availability of a warrant. However, the language also justifies the search as “incident to petitioner’s arrest,” which would indicate that the test was upheld as a search incident-to-arrest. In situations where it is appropriate, that has been described as a “categorical” exception to the warrant requirement that does not require any case-by-case
Rule: 1. Justice White, speaking for the majority believes that the decision in this case is similar to Bell v. Burson, in which held that the state could not deprive a person of there drivers license pertaining to a speeding violation without a hearing. He stated: "The states interest in caring for Stanley’s children is de minimis if Stanley is shown to be a fit father. It insists on presuming rather than proving Stanley’s unfitness solely because it is more convenient to presume than to prove. 2. They concluded that all Illinois parents are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on their fitness before their children are removed from their custody. Denying such a hearing to Stanley and those like him while granting it to other Illinois parents is inescapably contrary to the Equal Protection Clause. 3. The rule of law that justifies the holding of the case is: "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state may neither supply nor hinder" (Prince v. Mass.). 4. "The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment.
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.
Varma, K. (2007, April). Parental Involvement In Youth Court. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 49(2), 231-260. doi: 10.3138/9565-1823-66UT-507K
“While his mother cooked methamphetamine, Anthony watched television. That is what he was doing the day the police came. He was five years old (Bernstein 2005).” Being a child of an incarcerated parent is not just a traumatic ev...
Introduction According to Bowen’s (2013) family systems theory, individuals in a family unit are all interconnected and the system is comprised of interlocking connections (Bowen, 2013). Consequently, whenever an individual in a family system is experiencing a stressor or problem the other individuals in the system will be affected by the stressor and will experience a change in the family system (Bowen, 2013). Bowen (2013) suggests that this family system can be used to understand the dynamics of the family unit and explains that an individual’s behavior has a specific function in his or her own family system (Bowen, 2013). By taking into consideration this theory when looking at a family struggling with an incarcerated parent, it is evident that the spouse, children, and grandparents of the family system will be impacted by the incarcerated individual’s situation.
...arteries a secret. This I find to be substantially suspect. While I do not argue that the student athletes have a lower expectation of privacy due to their situation in the locker rooms and activities undertaken together as a team, I do not believe that this expectation is nearly low enough to allow an invasion of ones own body for the purposes of a search. Clearly there is no way for anyone to have any indication of what chemicals are contained inside one's own blood by a casual glance or even a thorough study of the outside of one's body. The expectation of privacy regarding one's blood would be equivalent to the contents of a safe hidden and locked inside one's house. While this expectation of privacy is something to be respected it can still be violated by an individual suspicious of guilt accompanied by a probable cause and a search warrant. In that case the blood test or the opening of the safe would be justified in my opinion. But due to the nature of the randomness of this search it is obvious to me that it is unconstitutional and this court decision should be reversed.
Easterling and Johnson. (2012). Understanding Unique Effects of Parental Incarceration on Children: Challenges, Progress, and Recommendations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 342-356.
Roberts, Dorothy. E. 2012. “Prison, Foster Care, and the Systematic Punishment of Black Mothers (Overpoliced and Underprotected: Women, Race, and Criminalization).” UCLA Law Review. 59:6, 1474-1500.
2006. “Disentangling the Risks: Parent Criminal Justice Involvement and Children’s Exposure to Family Risks.” Criminology and Public Policy 5(4).
A large burden is placed on families when youth are incarcerated. There is not only the pain of being separated, but it also prevents families from being involved in the juvenile’s life, which is a barrier to the child’s recovery, future, and