My Final Words

I would like to take this time to reflect on all the previous time I have worked on this blog. I am very proud of my work and I really enjoyed participating in such a different activity. I have expanded my knowledge on some very important cases dealing with what American citizens have to deal with each day. I hope that those who have read this appreciate the thought put in to each of my postings. Law is my passion and I try to be subjective and fair, just as how they try to teach lawyers. What you need to understand is that the law is such an important aspect of living here in the United States and that you should embrace the beauty behind it. I find that when you delve into a topic it just keeps getting more and more interesting. So here are my final words. I hope you try to learn more about your rights as a citizen and I hope you understand why some precedents are the way they are.

Current Issues: Court takes prosecutorial immunity case (March 22, 2010)

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a district attorney's office can be held liable for the actions of prosecutors in the case of a former death row inmate who accused them of withholding evidence to help convict him of murder.The case concerns John Thompson, who was convicted of attempted armed robbery in 1985, shortly before he was scheduled to stand trial in an unrelated murder case. He did not testify during the murder trial. Prosecutors used Thompson's conviction in the robbery case to help secure the death penalty in the murder case.In 1999, an investigator working on Thompson's case discovered a crime lab report that prosecutors had not turned over, indicating Thompson's blood type did not match the perpetrator in the attempted robbery.A state appeals court set aside Thompson's murder conviction in 2002 after deciding he'd been unconstitutionally deprived of his right to testify during the murder trial. That cleared the way for the new trial in which Thompson was acquitted.After Thompson's acquittal, he sued the district attorney's office that was led at the time of his 1985 conviction by Harry Connick, alleging that evidence had been wrongfully withheld.The current Orleans Parish District Attorney, Leon Cannizzaro, has said the judgment is roughly equal to his office's annual operating budget and would have "devastating" financial consequences.On March 22, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case for review. The justices will hear oral arguments in the fall.Question presented: Does imposing liability for failing to train a prosecutor on a district attorney’s office for a single Brady violation contravene rigorous culpability and causation

A little bit about me

Since a blog is supposed to be more opinionated I am going to talk about my future aspirations and why I am so intersted on this subject. I have high hopes of becoming a supreme court justice. I know it is hard to attain however I strive to be the greatest. Before so, I plan to go to law school and become a corporate attorney. I have been passionate about this since I was about seven years old. At school I have taken every class available to do with law. I have competed within debate since my freshman year and I have participated in a mock trial. One of my favorite documents is the Constitution. I took a class devoted to the teachings of this document. I am currently reading The Federalist which is closely related to the very constitution that our country with holds today.

What is Going On?

A group of 10 Republican delegates and senators in the Virginia General Assembly are engaging themselved in the battle over President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan. They want Democratic Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner to question Kagan about her opposition to military recruiting on campus during her career as dean of Harvard Law School.

Kagan opposed allowing military recruiters on campus because she believed the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy for gay service members violated Harvard's nondiscrimination policy- I believe that is wrong considering that it is not an act of discrimination, it is freedom of expression.

Bloate vs. United States (2010)

Facts of the Case:
Taylor James Bloate was convicted in a Missouri federal district court on counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. In a pretrial motion, Mr. Bloate moved to dismiss arguing that there had been a Speedy Trial Act violation. It was denied. The Act requires that a defendant's trial begin within "70 days after the indictment or the defendant's initial appearance, whichever is later." However, it excludes "any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant." Following his conviction, Mr. Bloate appealed, arguing that his motion to dismiss was improperly denied as the court excluded too many days in its calculation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed Mr. Bloate's conviction. It recognized that six circuits hold that "pretrial motion preparation may be excluded, if the court specifically grants time for that purpose" and that two do not. Here, the Eighth Circuit sided with the majority in holding that the district court properly excluded days from the time of Mr. Bloate's indictment to his trial and therefore there was no violation to the Speedy Trial Act.

Question:
Is time granted to prepare pretrial motions automatically excludable under 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(1)?

Conclusion:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit holding that the time granted to prepare pretrial motions is not automatically excludable from the 70-day limit under subsection (h)(1). Rather, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the majority, the Court stated that such time may be excluded only when a district court grants a continuance based on appropriate findings under subsection (h)(7). The Court reasoned that the period of time sought to be excluded by the government preceded the first day upon which Congress specified that such delay may be automatically excluded. Thus, in this case, the pretrial preparation time was not automatically excludable.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a separate concurring opinion. She highlighted that nothing in the majority decision prevents the Eight Circuit upon remand from considering the government's argument that Mr. Bloate's indictment and conviction remain valid. Justice Samuel A. Alito, joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, dissented. He argued that the neither the text nor legislative history of the Speedy Trial Act support the majority decision. Instead, he criticized the majority for creating a rule that would entitle Mr. Bloate to dismissal of his charge because his attorney persuaded a Magistrate Judge to give him more time to prepare pretrial motions.

An Animal Rights Case

The case in question, United States vs. Stevens, centered on Robert Stevens, a purveyor of the video series "Dogs of Velvet and Steel." Stevens produced and sold videos of pit bulls engaging in dogfights and viciously attacking other animals. These videos include graphic depictions of torture and brutality, including a pit bull mutilating the lower jaw of a live pig. In January 2005, Stevens was convicted of violating the Animal Cruelty Act (1999), which criminalized the trafficking of depictions of animal cruelty, except those with "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value." A federal appeals court overturned Stevens' conviction and ruled that the animal cruelty law violated his First Amendment right to free speech. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling.
The fundamental question is this: Does the Animal Cruelty Act violate the First Amendment right of freedom of speech? Certainly, the right to free speech is one of the paramount freedoms in our society. Our country was founded on the principle that people should not be persecuted for voicing unpopular opinions. Naturally, in order to be effective, this freedom protects disturbing and offensive speech.
However, there are very specific types of speech that we, as a society, have deemed so despicable and so lacking in merit that they do not deserve protection, among them child pornography, obscenity, threats and incitement of violence. Animal cruelty should be one of these unprotected categories. As Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, wrote, "We wouldn't allow the sale of videos of actual child abuse or murder staged for the express purpose of selling videos of such criminal acts." There is no reason to ignore depictions of animal cruelty while rightfully criminalizing parallel depictions of child abuse.
The Supreme Court should have recognized that videos of dogfighting and animal mutilation - created not to educate or inform but merely to titillate - have no constitutional protection. As Justice Samuel Alito, the sole dissenter, argued, "The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes."
Videos of defenseless animals cruelly victimized to excite the violent and sexual fantasies of certain customers have no place in our society, regardless of the free speech claims of their producers.

Newest and Latest

President Obama will meet with senators from both parties on April 21 to discuss the upcoming vacancy on the Supreme Court, the White House announced today.
Scheduled to appear are Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, (D-Vt.) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
They are expected to discuss the procedures for the confirmation hearings expected over the summer so that the new justice can take a seat on the bench by the fall term.
Obama will name a nominee to replace Justice John Paul Stevens, who just last week announced his retirement from the Supreme Court at the end of the current term. The candidate will have to go through hearings held by the Judiciary Committee before a vote by the full Senate.
The White House this week revealed that among the contenders was federal appeals court judge Sidney Thomas of Montana, and at least six others who were on the list when Obama chose Justice Sonia Sotomayor for the court. Among those considered potential nominees are: former Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, federal appeals court judges Diane Wood and Merrick Garland, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
Republican leaders have said they will examine the nominee carefully, but it is unclear whether there will be a filibuster. Democrats no longer have a sure 60 votes needed to break any logjam.

Extra Info About our Supreme Court

Constitutional Origin. Article III, §1, of the Constitution provides that "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Supreme Court of the United States was created in accordance with this provision and by authority of the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 73). It was organized on February 2, 1790.

Jurisdiction. According to the Constitution (Art. III, §2): "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Appellate jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Supreme Court by various statutes, under the authority given Congress by the Constitution. The basic statute effective at this time in conferring and controlling jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be found in 28 U. S. C. §1251 et seq., and various special statutes.

Rulemaking Power. Congress has from time to time conferred upon the Supreme Court power to prescribe rules of procedure to be followed by the lower courts of the United States. See 28 U. S. C. §2071 et seq.

The Building. The Supreme Court is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. It is closed Saturdays, Sundays, and the federal legal holidays listed in 5 U. S. C. §6103. Unless the Court or the Chief Justice orders otherwise, the Clerk’s Office is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on those holidays. The Library is open to members of the Bar of the Court, attorneys for the various federal departments and agencies, and Members of Congress.

The Term. The Term of the Court begins, by law, on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October of the next year. Approximately 10,000 petitions are filed with the Court in the course of a Term. In addition, some 1,200 applications of various kinds are filed each year that can be acted upon by a single Justice.

The Florida Supreme Court Seal

The origins of the official seal of the Supreme Court of Florida go far back into an obscure history. Before statehood in 1845, Florida was a territory of the United States governed by federal law. In 1824, Congress created a Court of Appeals of the Territory of Florida, which is the immediate predecessor of the present Supreme Court. Sometime between 1825 and 1845, the Territorial Court adopted an official seal that later formed the basis for the seal reproduced above. Unfortunately, the original metal disks from the first seal have not survived.

In the early 1980s, Supreme Court Librarian Brian Polley attempted to locate original sealed documents issued by the Territorial Court. Several were found in the Florida State Archives, but nearly all had been compressed through years of improper storage, causing the loss of fine details.

Mr. Polley did learn that the Territorial Court seal was strikingly similar to the present Supreme Court seal, with two notable exceptions. First, a seated Goddess of Justice appears in both seals, but in the Territorial version the eagle faces away from her. Second, the Goddess in the Territorial seal is seated on a bale of cotton, whereas in the present seal she is seated on a block of stone. The use of a cotton bale undoubtedly reflects the importance of cotton to Florida's early economy.

The present seal was officially adopted in 1950, and is the one set into the floor immediately beneath the Court rotunda. As in all prior seals, the official motto is the Latin phrase Sat Cito Si Recte (pronounced as saht see-to see rayk- tay), which means "Soon enough if done rightly." The phrase indicates the importance of taking the time necessary to reach the correct result.

In the seal the Goddess of Justice is the Greek goddess Themis. She is blindfolded to symbolize the impartiality of the law, and she carries the scales of justice in one hand and the avenging sword in the other. The letter "F" carved into the stone behind the Goddess symbolizes Florida. The eagle has been interpreted as the power of justice ruling the world.

There has been much debate over the significance of the eighteen stars above the Goddess. Some have speculated that they mean nothing. One possible explanation, however, is that they symbolize Themis' daughter, the virgin goddess Astraea, whose constellation in the night sky is known as Virgo.

To the Greeks, Astraea symbolized what might be called "innocent justice," which was thought to have prevailed on the earth during the Golden Age. When sin entered the world, the Greeks believed, Astraea was removed from the earth and placed in the heavens as the constellation Virgo -- the virgin -- an eternal reminder of the innocent justice humankind had lost.

Our Very Own Florida Supreme Court

More than 80 women and men have served as Justices of Florida highest Court since it was created upon statehood in 1845 and held its first arguments in 1846. The Florida Supreme Court has existed for more than 150 years, spanning two vastly different eras -- the time in 1845 when Florida was the least populous Southern state, and today when Florida's population ranks fourth nationwide. Read about the History of Florida Law and the History of the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court not only is the highest court in Florida, its Chief Justice oversees the entire State Courts System. This includes many management functions centralized in Tallahassee in the Office of the State Courts Administrator, and regulation of The Florida Bar. Every court has a seal to mark its documents as official acts of the Judges or Justices. But the Seal of the Supreme Court of Florida is so old -- dating to some time before 1845 -- that no records remain to explain its exact meaning. Take an on-line historical tour of the lives and times of former Supreme Court Justices. They are a colorful group that included a former nun, a real-life Florida cowboy, and a duellist. The Supreme Court of Florida is housed in one of the most historically significant buildings in the state capital, with architecture inspired by Thomas Jefferson. I have personally visited the supreme court of Florida and I found it very fascinating. I even took my own pictures and I got to sit in the chairs. The picture above was actually taking by me via cell phone.

The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment states, "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." A search warrant is needed when the search of your house is wanted. However there are many little situation which can deem the warrant as illegal, such as a typo on the warrant. Warrants aren't always neccessary, the following events are when a warrant does not have to be presented in order to search a premise:

Consent: Law enforcement can request to enter a person’s home or search a person’s belongings. If the person consents to the search and gives law enforcement express permission to conduct the search then a warrant is unnecessary.

Plain View Doctrine: Law enforcement does not need a search warrant to obtain evidence that is in plain sight. For example, if an officer is walking down the street and sees a person with drugs in the park then the officer may arrest that person and keep the drugs as evidence even though a search warrant was not obtained. This exception exists because individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are in plain view.

Emergency Situation: If the police are in hot pursuit of a felon and follow that alleged felon into a home or other private area then they do not need a warrant to obtain evidence that is in plain sight when they enter the building.

For example, a police officer may witness a robbery or an assault and begin to pursue the criminal to make an arrest. If the criminal flees and takes refuge in a private residence then the police may follow him and they do not need a search warrant to enter the home nor to collect evidence that is in plain sight or within the reach of the alleged criminal.

Police may also enter a residence without a warrant if they hear a person screaming for help or have reason to believe that a person or property is in imminent danger and that harm would result in the time it would take to obtain a search warrant.

Search Incident to Arrest: Police officers may search the body and immediate surroundings of a person whom they take into custody. The courts have allowed this exception to the search warrant rule in order to protect police officers from people who may have concealed weapons.

Keep in mind when a search should be carried out. You may have a reason to defend yourself if the search was considered illegal. It is up to you to defend yourself against little issues, and to notice if something is not how it is supposed to be. Stay aware, and you won't get in trouble with the law.

Mapp v. Ohio 1961

This Case is very important to people today because it shows that you have to be aware of when a search and seizure is legal. Dolree mapp was unaware that the police confiscated "obscene" materials without proper means to. What is very important to get out of this case is the fact that not every search is entirely necessary and if the police search your house, then you have to evaluate the reasons as to why they are there in order to determine whether the search of your belonging is a legal search according to the Fourth Amendment.

Facts of the Case:

Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression.

Question:

Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? (May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?)

Conclusion:

The Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence. This was an historic -- and controversial -- decision. It placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.

Kyllo vs. United States 2001

With technology always advancing it's going to get much harder and harder for people to hide the very actions within their home. This case protects people from advanced forms of technology. It states that objects that aren't in "general public use" are deemed unconstitutional. The term "general public use" means that it is not accessible to all the people within the area. This concept, however, does not constitute the right for people to act against the law. Kyllo still broke the law but he set the precedent against the government being able to charge people with crimes by using special ways. In a way, I wish that the government was allowed to go to the extent to use more advanced methods so that more criminals could be charged. What I hope is that those "uncommon" devices become more apparent in crime solving and that more people can be caught engaging in illegal activity.

Facts of the Case:
A Department of the Interior agent, suspicious that Danny Kyllo was growing marijuana, used a thermal-imaging device to scan his triplex. The imaging was to be used to determine if the amount of heat emanating from the home was consistent with the high-intensity lamps typically used for indoor marijuana growth. Subsequently, the imaging revealed that relatively hot areas existed, compared to the rest of the home. Based on informants, utility bills, and the thermal imaging, a federal magistrate judge issued a warrant to search Kyllo's home. The search unveiled growing marijuana. After Kyllo was indicted on a federal drug charge, he unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home and then entered a conditional guilty plea. Ultimately affirming, the Court of Appeals held that Kyllo had shown no subjective expectation of privacy because he had made no attempt to conceal the heat escaping from his home, and even if he had, there was no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy because the imager "did not expose any intimate details of Kyllo's life," only "amorphous 'hot spots' on the roof and exterior wall."

Question:
Does the use of a thermal-imaging device to detect relative amounts of heat emanating from a private home constitute an unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion:
Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that "[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant." In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the "observations were made with a fairly primitive thermal imager that gathered data exposed on the outside of [Kyllo's] home but did not invade any constitutionally protected interest in privacy," and were, thus, "information in the public domain."

Dred Scott vs. Sandford 1857

I decided to address this case to the readers because it is a very well known case. We have all come across this case in our American History books. I find that if you set yourself in the mentality of the people at this time you can subjectively understand their point of view in the case, however, it does not constitute their actions as right. along with the decision of the case a justice stated, ". . . . . . We think they [people of African ancestry] are . . . not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. . . ." Personally, I would disagree with the aforementioned statement because Scott was considered free and therefor was considered citizen. the consideration of race should not judge a human's inclusion of society.

Facts of the Case:
Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in an area of the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. Scott then brought a new suit in federal court. Scott's master maintained that no pure-blooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution.

Question:
Was Dred Scott free or slave?

Conclusion:
Dred Scott was a slave. Under Articles III and IV, argued Taney, no one but a citizen of the United States could be a citizen of a state, and that only Congress could confer national citizenship. Taney reached the conclusion that no person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen for Article III purposes. The Court then held the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, hoping to end the slavery question once and for all.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye vs. Hialeah 1993

I chose to discuss this case because it is more local. As you may or may not know, Santeria is the practice of black magic which involves animal sacrifice and voodoo. The influence of the Caribbean attributes to the presence of this practice in South Florida. This case deals with the Free Exercise Clause which prohibits the government to deny the practice of a certain religion. The separation of Church and State guarantees this. The Supreme Court only gave the permissive result to the specific church, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, to practice these animal sacrifice rituals. All the ordinances agree with this decision. Not everyone may agree with these practices, however, you can't contest it because of the Free Exercise Clause.

Facts of the Case:
The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye practiced the Afro-Caribbean-based religion of Santeria. Santeria used animal sacrifice as a form of worship in which an animal's carotid arteries would be cut and, except during healing and death rights, the animal would be eaten. Shortly after the announcement of the establishment of a Santeria church in Hialeah, Florida, the city council adopted several ordinances addressing religious sacrifice. The ordinances prohibited possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter, with specific exemptions for state-licensed activities.

Question:
Did the city of Hialeah's ordinance, prohibiting ritual animal sacrifices, violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause?

Conclusion:
Yes. The Court held that the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable. The ordinances had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest and they had to be narrowly tailored to that interest. The core failure of the ordinances were that they applied exclusively to the church. The ordinances singled out the activities of the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their stated ends. Only conduct tied to religious belief was burdened. The ordinances targeted religious behavior, therefore they failed to survive the rigors of strict strutiny.

Loving vs. Virginia 1967

It is imperative to acknowledge the impact that this case has on many people now. More than seven percent of the 59 million married couples in the United States are interracial. I would say that the last name of Richard Loving is very ironic in this case. According to the Virginia antimiscengenation laws, they banned interracial marriage and sometimes sex between members of two different races. This was solely a case based on racial discrimination. This case violated the fourteenth amendment which gives equal protection to all people. In recent days we would look at this case as totallly ridiculous and we would never deny the right to marriage for interracial couples. Our issue that is posed to us now is the case of gay marriage. I guarantee that in our lifetime we will see the result of that case in a Supreme Court decision.

Facts of the Case:
In 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia. The Lovings returned to Virginia shortly thereafter. The couple was then charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail (the trial judge agreed to suspend the sentence if the Lovings would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years).

Question:
Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion:
Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Katz vs. United States 1967

This case is very important because it involves our personal privacy. This case is based on the fourth amendment which deals with search and seizure. Phonebooths may not be prevalent now everyday, however, the fact that the government can tap into our conversations that easily is perplexing. All it takes for the government to make such an action is to tap a conversation. The phonebooth is considered public property so it was way easier for the government to obtain the conversation that Katz was having. Nowadays with cell phones, it's easy to tap a conversation, but its hard to get the warrant to do so.

Facts of the Case:
Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth used by Katz. Based on recordings of his end of the conversations, Katz was convicted under an eight-count indictment for the illegal transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami. On appeal, Katz challanged his conviction arguing that the recordings could not be used as evidence against him. The Court of Appeals rejected this point, noting the absence of a physical intrusion into the phone booth itself. The Court granted certiorari.

Question:
Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone?

Conclusion:
Yes. The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," wrote Justice Potter Stewart for the Court. A concurring opinion by John Marshall Harlan introduced the idea of a 'reasonable' expectation of Fourth Amendment protection.

Tinker vs. Des Moines Ind. Comm. School Dist. 1969

This case is very important to teenagers because it deals with freedom of expression. The arm bands worn by the students exemplify the protest against the Vietnam War. The issue presented by the school was that it caused a disruption. This case deals with the first amendment which grants freedom of expression. As long as the action does not pose a direct threat to people it is okay to do. It is obvious that armbands can not do any harm. They were simply a very good way to show opposistion of the Vietnam War. I find that many people struggle to express themselves everyday because they live in fear that they will be reprimanded for the action they take, which is why after you review this case you can see how protected you really are by the constitution.

Facts of the Case:
John Tinker, 15 years old, his sister Mary Beth Tinker, 13 years old, and Christopher Echardt, 16 years old, decided along with their parents to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to their Des Moines schools during the Christmas holiday season. Upon learning of their intentions, and fearing that the armbands would provoke disturbances, the principals of the Des Moines school district resolved that all students wearing armbands be asked to remove them or face suspension. When the Tinker siblings and Christopher wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.

Question:
Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?

Conclusion:
The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment. School environments imply limitations on free expression, but here the principals lacked justification for imposing any such limits.The principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.

California vs. Greenwood 1988

What this case proves is that you are never safe after you throw something away. The Supreme Court ruled that once you put a trashcan on the street corner, the substances inside are no longer you property and any officially can legally search the contents. The case seems to go against the reasonable expectation of privacy but it doesn't. Once you discard something, you made the conscience decision that you no longer want the item, or whatever you threw into the garbage can . So this case clearly deals with what you throw away can come back to haunt you. The downside on the officials side is that they have to actually prove that whatever found in the trashcans were discarded by the person. Just remember, don't think that throwing something away gets you out of trouble because it could backfire on you later.

Facts of the Case:
Local police suspected Billy Greenwood was dealing drugs from his residence. Because the police did not have enough evidence for a warrant to search his home, they searched the garbage bags Greenwood had left at the curb for pickup. The police uncovered evidence of drug use, which was then used to obtain a warrant to search the house. That search turned up illegal substances, and Greenwood was arrested on felony charges.


Question:
Did the warrantless search and seizure of Greenwood's garbage violate the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure guarantee?


Conclusion:
Voting 6 to 2, the Court held that garbage placed at the curbside is unprotected by the Fourth Amendment. The Court argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy for trash on public streets "readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public." The Court also noted that the police cannot be expected to ignore criminal activity that can be observed by "any member of the public."[Oyez]

Miranda vs. Arizona 1966

One of the most important laws still used today are the Miranda Laws. Those are the laws read to you by a police officer when under arrest. It is those laws which inform you of your rights at the time. I would have to say that the Miranda laws are the most well known laws. They include " you may choose to remain silent anything you say or do can be used against you in the court of law..." and if you actually listen to the law it is very effective. In recent days all cops have to have a camera located in the front of the vehicle in order to record themselved reciting these laws. If the laws are misread or a mistake is made while reading the law to a victim, it opens full opportunity or a mistrial. So, these laws do have a massive impact on those who get arrested, and if you get arrested and don't hear the law being given to you, then you won the case plain and simple.


Facts of the Case:
The Court was called upon to consider the constitutionality of a number of instances, ruled on jointly, in which defendants were questioned "while in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in any significant way." In Vignera v. New York, the petitioner was questioned by police, made oral admissions, and signed an inculpatory statement all without being notified of his right to counsel. Similarly, in Westover v. United States, the petitioner was arrested by the FBI, interrogated, and made to sign statements without being notified of his right to counsel. Lastly, in California v. Stewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right to counsel. In all these cases, suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world. In none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation.


Question:
Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?


Conclusion:
The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." The Court noted that "the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented" and that "the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition." The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations [Oyez]

Chisholm vs. Georgia 1793

To begin with, each case reviewed by the Supreme Court sets a precedent that is applicable to cases being heard even today. The earliest case available on www.Oyez.com is Chisholm vs. Georgia 1793. The purpose of the case was to answer a main question (which is presented below.) This goes on to prove that a minor issue can still uphold as a law/ precedent over 200 years later.


Facts of the Case:

In 1777, the Executive Council of Georgia authorized the purchase of needed supplies from a South Carolina businessman. After receiving the supplies, Georgia did not deliver payments as promised. After the merchant's death, the executor of his estate, Alexander Chisholm, took the case to court in an attempt to collect from the state. Georgia maintained that it was a sovereign state not subject to the authority of the federal courts.

Question:

Was the state of Georgia subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal government?

Conclusion:

In a 4-to-1 decision, the justices held that "the people of the United States" intended to bind the states by the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the national government. The Court held that supreme or sovereign power was retained by citizens themselves, not by the "artificial person" of the State of Georgia. The Constitution made clear that controversies between individual states and citizens of other states were under the jurisdiction of federal courts. State conduct was subject to judicial review. [Oyez]

Main Focus

The main focus of the Supreme Court is to overlook a case and to determine whether it follows Constitutional guidelines. As you may or may not know, The Constitution only protects against government action not private matters. The Supreme Court does not just review any case. Cases are never directly sent to The Supreme Court. The case must begin in the Federal Circuit in one of the US District Courts or in a state trial court. If a verdict is unsatisfactory, the next thing to do is appeal that case to the US Federal Court of Appeals for the Federal District. If the verdict is still unsatisfactory, it can be submitted to the US Supreme Court which will then decide on whether or not to hear the case. If the case is accepted the Judges will hear both arguments and determine, based on majority opinion, the outcome.
There are justices in the Supreme court, they are:(chief Justice) John G. Roberts, Jr., John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A Alito, Jr., Sonia Sotomayor. Each individual judge plays and imparative role in the decision making process. Each judge bases their decision on their position on the political standpoint. The justices are the most important people when it comes to setting precedents for the country's legal system