Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Youngstown Sheet And Tube Company

Name: Terry v. Ohio 392 US1 Supreme Court 1968 Facts: The incident occurred on October 31st 1963 at approximately 2:30pm in the afternoon. The police officer who was dressed in plain clothes was attracted by Terry and Chilton who were casing a store. With 30 years of prior experience in the area. The officer knew casing when he saw it. He had been assigned to that area specifically in search for shoplifters and pick pockets.

In Commonwealth v. Newman, 429 PA. 441 (1968), on November 16, 1964, at about 11:30 a.m. four detectives went to appellant 's home with a body warrant for appellant and a search warrant for the premises. The complaint for the search warrant recited that the affiant, Detective John McCrory, deposed that there was probable cause to believe that certain books, papers, and other items used for the purpose of a lottery were in the possession of Henderson Newman at or near 721 West Mary Street. They forcefully entered the appellant 's home without announcement or purpose. The court held that, the forcible entry without announcement of purpose violates the Fourth Amendment. The fruits of an illegal search are inadmissible under Mapp v. Ohio,

Terry v. Ohio and Minnesota v. Dickerson are two cases that had a significant impact on search and seizures conducted by law enforcement. In Terry v. Ohio, a Cleveland detective working a routine patrol encountered two strangers acting suspiciously near a store window. One would walk to the store and stare in the window and then return to talk with the other on a corner nearby. After following them, he saw them meet up with a third man. He suspected that the three men were casing the store for a robbery and ordered all three into the store.

In 1988, California v. Billy Greenwood and Dyanne Van Houten was about a suspecting of selling and using drugs in Mr. Greenwood house a narcotic officer told the man to bring her the trash bag which Greenwood had placed out the street for pick up, but as the officer search the bags she found drug paraphernalia which was used as evidence to convict Mr. Greenwood but the lower court revoked it because she search the trash bag without a warrant and that was a violation of the fourth amendment. but the trash bags was placed on the street were any child or animal can unseal it so he could not argue about his privacy if it was out in the police for anything or any person to expose the content of the bags but the court stated “ the police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public “ this means

Since the police officer had a reasonable suspicion that the Respondent was holding drugs, the officer’s search and seizure of the cocaine was reasonable since the search remained within the bounds set forth by Terry v. Ohio. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a police officer’s sense of touch does not incur an invasion of Petitioner’s privacy during a stop and

QUESTION PRESENTED Was Carrie Kinsella falsely imprisoned when her friend was physically led to the manager’s office and not allowed to leave while they were both suspected of shoplifting and being asked to wait until police arrived? BRIEF ANSWER Probably not. False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint against a person’s will.

I have found five online news articles and four videos related to this case through various websites. These websites1 include two articles from cleveland19.com, one from cbs46.com, one from thesuburbanite.com, one from ohio.com, one from clevescene.com, one from kptv.com, one from wfsb.com, and the last news posting that I found on this case is from wtol.com. Full links can be found at the

The link above is a primary source over “The "Brandeis Brief" from Muller v. Oregon (1908).” Muller vs Oregon was one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court cases of the Progressive Era. Going into this case, Muller issue was, “is a state law setting a maximum workday for women constitutional?” Muller vs The State of Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908) was argued on January 5, 1908 and ending on February 24, 1908. Curt Muller was a laundry mat owner in Portland, Oregon who was charged with violating an Oregon law that strictly set a restricted maximum of ten hours a day for a women employee to work.

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).

One of the many landmark cases heard by the United States Supreme Court in American history was Lemon vs Kurtzman. In 1971 the Supreme Court had to decide if states could give money to certain religious based schools to hire staff even if the teachers couldn’t teach religious classes. The first amendment to the Constitution established the law of separation of church and state. What is the established boundary between church and state? This case would be the defining point in that fight between the involvement of a state and the churches.

Colorado and Unreasonable Search and Seizure in California, attorney Robert M. Desky states, “The United States Supreme Court, in Wolf v. Colorado, ' held for the first time that "the security of one 's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police-which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment,” Desky continues, “But at the same time the Court held that the states need not observe the federal rule which excludes from criminal prosecutions evidence obtained by illegal search. The majority opinion explained away the federal exclusionary rule as "judicial implication" based upon the Fourth Amendment, while Justice Black, in a concurring opinion, characterized the rule as a "judicially created rule of evidence," a description which seems more consistent with the Court 's suggestion that it could be changed by Congress.” According to Mr. Desky’s statement, the court believed that the exclusionary rule, which determines whether or not evidence is excluded from a trial, was left only up to the federal government and not the states. Therefore the state courts could not exclude any illegal evidence from a

The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures from police officers, unless a search warrant has been allowed by the Court. However, the Supreme Court ruled that unwarranted searches will be acceptable if: the officer reasonably feels the search is necessary for his/her own safety, if probable cause leads the officer to believe a crime has been committed, if the person consents to the search, or if the person has been arrested, and the search is related to the crime. These reasons are arguably fair, as a police officer should be able to act on intuition if he/she feels as though his/her life is in danger or the lives of other. However, this opens up the possibility for racial bias affecting the judgment of police officers,

The unresolved questions that attend the exclusionary rule can serve as catalysts of law that could foster harmonious relations among federal and state governments in their common responsibility of balancing individual freedom against governmental regulation and restraint.” In addition, in her Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology article, Expanding Exclusionary Rule Exceptions and Contracting Fourth Amendment Protection, Professor Heather A. Jackson states, “In 1961, in Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution mandated the exclusionary rule as a remedy of a Fourth Amendment violation in state proceedings. The Mapp Court examined the foundation of the precedent of Wolf, which came to the opposite conclusion, and ultimately

Back in 1975, there was a major case called, Payton V. New York. Theodore Payton was suspected of murdering a gas station manager, they found evidence within his home that connected him with the crime. What caused the problem was the fact New York had a law that allowed unwarranted searches if the person was a suspect. Based off the oral argument presented by Oyez, the police said it didn't count as the evidence because it was in public view when entering the home. It had to be appealed before it was determined as unconstitutional.

The rules main goal is to prohibit evidence obtained in violation of a person's constitutional rights from being admissible in court (Siegel 2010). The exclusionary rule may prevent evidence seized in violation of a person's constitutional rights from being admitted into court, an officer who has violated someone's rights could also be sued along with their agency. According to Section 1983 of the U.S. Code an officer could be prosecuted criminally under some circumstances as well (Forsythe n.d.). The case United States v. Leon is notable because due to this case the good faith exception was added to the exclusionary rule. The exemption allows evidence collected in violation of privacy rights as interpreted from the Fourth Amendment to be admitted at trial if police officers acting in good faith relied upon a defective search warrant (Siegel 2010).