Commonwealth V. Newman Case Study

Case: Horton v. California Citation: 496 U.S. 128 (1990) Year Decided: 1990 Facts: After obtaining a warrant for stolen items from an armed robbery, a California police officer searched petitioner Horton’s home. The officer had described both the weapons used and property stolen in the affidavit for the search warrant, but the Magistrate issuing the warrant only authorized a search for the stolen property. Even though the police did not discover the stolen property, weapons matching the officer’s description were found in plain view and seized. Horton ended up being convicted of armed robbery after a motion to suppress the seized evidence was denied by the trial court.

The case involves the question of whether or not the police were within their rights to search the trash that was left at the curbside without a warrant. The amendment

Case Analysis: Trinity Western v. Law Society of Upper Canada In the following court case between Trinity Western University v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, Judges MacPherson, Cronk, and Pardu JJ, at the Ontario Court of Appeal, determine whether to grant accreditation to a private Christian University, that wants to open its own law school. The three-judge panel analyzes the Law Society of Upper Canada’s (LSUC) decision to not accredit Trinity Western’s proposed law facility, which took place in April 2014. The judges consider the Charter rights at stake, as well as the LSUC’s mandate. The case of TWU v. LSUC will be thoroughly examined, with a specific focus on key concepts that influence law-making, such as social development and change,

I Introduction In McCloy v New South Wales, the High Court upheld the validity of provisions in the Electoral Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 (NSW) that imposes caps on political donations, prohibits donations from property developers and restricts indirect campaign contributions in New South Wales. The majority did so on the grounds that whilst each of the provisions burdened the implied freedom of political communication, they had been enacted for legitimate purposes and hence, did not impermissibly infringe upon the implications within the Commonwealth Constitution.

Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the

The case of Mapp vs. Ohio is a case of illegal search and seizure. It went to the Supreme Court in 1961. It is important to today’s society because it might mean the difference between guilty and innocent. I agree with the Supreme Court because it is illegal to access private property without a warrant or consent. The case lasted until June 19, 1961.

Commonwealth v. Berkowitz (1992) Facts: At East Stroudsburg State University, Robert Berkowitz, age 20, and the victim, age 19, were both college sophomores in the Spring of 1988. Respectively, they had mutual friends and acquaintances. Nevertheless, April 19th of that year, the victim went to Berkowitz dormitory room. What transpired between the two, is the subject of the instant appeal.

MILLERSBURG — A Wooster man on Wednesday was given a chance to avoid prison when he was sentenced to complete a treatment program for admittedly being in possession of methamphetamine. Shaun Hall, 38, 540 High St., previously pleaded guilty in Holmes County Common Pleas Court to aggravated possession of meth. In exchange for his guilty plea, a related charge of aggravated trafficking in meth was dismissed. Hall had faced up to a year in prison for the charge, and Judge Robert Rinfret imposed a term of 11 months, but immediately suspended the period of incarceration in favor of five years of community control, which includes the condition he complete a treatment program at the Stark Regional Community Corrections Center.

Even with the absence of a defendant local police and US federal agent entered Week residence without a warrant and seized evidence related to “illegal gambling which they wished to use against Weeks in a criminal gambling crime” (Ingram p.81). Before his trial, “Weeks requested the return of documents that the federal government sought to use against him, however his request was denied and he was eventually partly convicted based on evidence illegally taken from his residence” (Ingram p. 81). However, during his appeal before the United States Supreme Court Weeks argue that his Fourth Amendment rights was violated when federal agents seized the documents that was used as evidence against him in the trial court and the Court agreed and reversed Weeks

Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of obscene pictures in Mapp 's basement. Mapp was arrested for possessing the pictures, and was convicted in an Ohio court where she lost the case in fighting her for first amendment rights. Then, Mapp argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search of the officers and got her case taken to the U.S. Supreme Court where she won. At the time of the case, unlawfully seized evidence was banned from federal courts but not state courts, meaning that the evidence found in Mapp’s home was used against her in the Ohio court, but not the U.S. Supreme Court.

To which amendment to the constitution does the case relate? Mapp appealed her case to the Supreme Court stating that the 4th Amendment should be incorporated. The 4th Amendment prohibits against unreasonable searches and seizures, and during Mapp’s arrest, the police came to the founding of the evidence presented in the trial without a warranty. 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

MILLERSBURG — Despite a plea for leniency expressed by the victim, a Sugarcreek man was unable to overcome a long history of criminal convictions and a bond violation when a Holmes County judge on Wednesday sentenced him to prison for making unwanted phone calls and threats to several members of a family over a period of months. David Lamar Schrock, 43, of 2578 State Route 39, previously pleaded guilty in Holmes County Common Pleas Court to two counts of telephone harassment and one count of menacing by stalking. In exchange for his guilty plea, the state agreed to dismiss two additional counts of telephone harassment and three counts of menacing by stalking. The charges are made more serious because Schrock was convicted, in January 2016,

The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).

41. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution.

At early common law, restrictions on future employment were illegal. The economy of 15th and 16th century was greatly dependent on the apprenticeship whereby guilds provided the craftsmen with workers and workers with a career path. Guilds consisted of three basic groups: These were the masters, the journeymen, and the apprentices. Only masters and journeymen were allowed to be members of the guild.