The pros of Terry v. Ohio case, is that the police officer was doing there job. They are trying to prevent crime from happening, and keeping the community safe. A example of that in this case would be, where the officer stopped and frisked the three men and then found out that there was weapons on two of them. The two of them were convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail. Think about it, what if the police officer did not do his job and did not stop and frisked them. Things may have been bad and get out of control. Overall, one of the cons that I can think of is; the search for weapons without probable cause is an unreasonable search but at the end, you could've argued with that, due to police officer safety.
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.
Defendant Freddie Lee Hall filed a motion to declare Florida Statute 921.137 (Florida Statute) as contrary to Atkins v. Virginia (2002) and, thus, unconstitutional. Hall, convicted in 1981 for the murder of Karol Hurst, was initially sentenced to death in September 1982. For three years, he fought his sentence, filing “a motion to vacate, a petition for writ of habeas corpus and an application for a stay of execution, all of which were denied” . In 1986, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard his appeal and reversed part of the lower court’s ruling, a decision granted when the court found Hall “entitled to a hearing on the issues of his absence from the courtroom and whether he deliberately bypassed his ineffective assistance of counsel claim” .
The Texas vs Johnson case didn't drastically change the way people viewed things. Yes, the trial caused a lot of uproar, especially in Texas because of its patriotism, but it wasn't a case in which a law or amendment needed to be changed but rather was a case in which an amendment needed to be understood. Johnson’s act of burning the American flag in front of Dallas City Hall, in order to protest the Reagan administration during the Republican National Convention, was deemed as a sign of “symbolic” speech. Johnson’s act was ruled to be protected by the first amendment because speech was considered more than just the written word. The Supreme Court ruled it as such because of prior cases such as “Stromberg v. California” and “Tinker v. Des
Troy Gregg was charged and sentenced to death for the robbery and murdered of Fred Simmons and Bob Moore. Gregg and Floyd Allen were hitchhiking in Florida when they were offered a ride by Fred Simmons and Bob Moore. During their journey, they picked up Dennis Weaver, another hitchhiker, that only stayed with them until Atlanta. During one of their stops, Troy Gregg murdered Simmons and Moore and stole their money and car. Weaver had contacted the police after hearing about a shooting the next day. After Gregg was found guilty, his punishment was between life-in-prison and the death penalty. The court sentenced Gregg to the death penalty, but Gregg challenged the court claiming that his death sentence violates his eighth
The Supreme Court in Florida v. Jardines (2013) held that the police taking a drug dog onto the porch of someone’s home without a warrant violates the homeowners Fourth Amendment rights. This case affects every police department in the United States as well as making more stringent guidelines as to what is considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights.
Missouri v. McNeely was U.S. Supreme Court decision, reviewed in certiorari, on appeal from the Missouri Supreme Court, regarding a 4th Amendment exception for the warrantless search of blood as evidence following the arrest of a DUI (Driving Under the Influence) suspect.
Kansas v. Hendricks was somewhat of a landmark case when it relates to individuals receiving treatment for a disorder after they have severed their respected prison sentence. Leroy Hendricks was nearing the end of his ten year prison sentence. He was convicted of violating or taking “indecent liberties” with two thirteen year old boys. Hendricks had an extensive history when it came to molesting children. He testified in court that he was diagnosed by a physician for suffering from pedophilia. He told the physician that he still has sexual desires for children and will not be able to control them once he is “stressed out”. It was then determined by a jury that Hendricks should be labeled as a violent sexual predator. Kansas authorities wanted
Miller v. Alabama was a case that was taken to trial on March 19, 2012. The case was resolved on June 24, 2012. The case involved Evan Miller and violating the eighth amendment with respect to life sentences. The eighth amendment states that excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The main impact this case had on criminal law was the United States Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to give a life-without-parole sentence on someone who was a minor at the time of the crime committed. Miller v. Alabama was a case where the eighth amendment was violated due to unusual punishment placed upon a fourteen year old boy and a impact
Our supreme court has been around for decades for the purpose of interpreting the law. Supreme court justices go through years of school and extensive work in order to receive the honorary position. The opinions, of supreme court justices, are highly respected and trusted. However, that does not mean that every decision that is made, is the right decision. Interpreting the law depends on the time period, current laws, morals and a list of other aspects of America’s society, at the time the law is being interpreted. Based on what the current law and morals were, I will dissect the best and worst supreme court decisions.
The case of United States v. Virginia (1996) deals with the issue on male only admissions for the Virginia Military Institute (VMI). The issue presented itself as a tricky one because there are still a lot of female only admission schools and VMI was the only male institution at the time. The case began its life in the Virginia Circuit Court and the issue was about VWIL not being equal to VMI. VMI’s admissions were for male only at the time. This case having an issue of constitutionality comes from the 14th amendment's equal protection clause being violated. This whole issue began in 1990 when a high school challenged the single sex admission policy while trying to enter VMI. The female high school student filed a complaint to the attorney
In December 1965, a group of students from Des Moines, Iowa met at Christopher Eckhardt’s home in order to plan a protest. During the meeting, the students planned to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season to show public support for a truce in the Vietnam War. However, the principal of the school got word of the planned protest and quickly established a policy that stated any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it. If they refused to do so, it would result in suspension. On December 16, 1965, the protest began and students Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were sent home. The following day John Tinker experienced the same result by wearing his armband as well. All three students
The pros are it helps ensure fair trials. A fair trial is the main focus on the Exclusionary rule is applied today. It is not just for the purpose of a conviction under the officer’s belt. It also controls law enforcement misconduct. It helps avoid the unlawful searching due to the exclusionary rule it is dropped the unlawful searches drastically. Another positive is that it helps the defendant out. If the evidence has been obtained illegally, the exclusionary ruled is extremely beneficial to the defendants. The exclusionary rule helps protect the innocent. For example, it can avoid somebody being framed them or pin a crime on somebody. The exclusionary rule will have a direct impact on the case against the innocent