Evidence In The Case Of US V. Caceres

Facts: Mr. Masciale was introduced to government agent Marshall by a government informer, Kowel. Mr. Masciale and Kowel had known each other for about four years and Mr. Masciale was unaware that Kowel’s was a part of some undercover activities. Therefore, Kowel introduced Marshall to Masciale as a big narcotics buyer. At the trial both Marshall and petitioner had testified concerning the ensuring conversation (supreme.justia.com. n.d.). Marshall stated in his testimony that he wanted to talk about buying a large quantity of high-grade narcotics and that if Masciale was not interested, then their conversation would be over.

I choose the Supreme Court case United States v. Causby because initially it reminded me of the movie Burlesque. In the movie, a man named Marcus did not want the view of his penthouse to be ruined by a skyscraper being built right next to the window. So, instead of buying the land property, he bought the air rights. Owning these air rights means that he owned the air above the surface level. This is similar to this Supreme Court case because Lee Causby was suing for the disturbance being caused planes that was happening above his property, and common law doctrine said that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe. Lee Causby “owned a dwelling and a chicken farm near a municipal airport. The safe path of glide to one of the

The defense has just discovered a witness whose statement is favourable to their case 45 days prior to the scheduled beginning of the trial. While it is required by law in the State of California to declare any reasonably anticipated witnesses and turn over statements they have made, there would be no technical basis for objection if the defense were to withhold this information and call the witness unexpectedly on the day of the trial. Because it can be argued that the defense decided the day of to call the witness, there will be no official complaint. However, there are important moral ramifications in this situation, as well as creating doubt as to the defense’s credibility.

During the supreme court case U.S v. Lopez, the United States Federal Government’s argument was that carrying a firearm inside an educational environment would lead to a violent crime. A violent crime ultimately affects the population of a school. Due to this, the federal government believed that the commerce clause should be practiced in this case. The Supreme Court backed the previous decision offered by the Five Court of Appeals. In United States v. Lopez, the U.S Supreme Court stated that Congress actually has the ability to make laws under the Clause, but these powers were limited and could not affect the Lopez case.

1.Probable cause is a set of facts surrounding a specific circumstances that leads a “reasonable person” to believe an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. Probable cause is required in the instances of an arrest, search and seizure and the issuance of a warrant. To ESTABILISH reasonable cause the officer can use any trustworthy information. For example the office could use his/her experience, informant information, first hand observations or knowledge, victim reports, anonymous tips, or hearsay.

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.

The court used a couple of cases that related to the Riley case. All these cases had the question was this violating the fourth amendment. The cases contained police officers searching a car or house without a warrant. The only way that police can search anything without a warrant is if they feel in danger. An example is the Arizona v. Gant case in 2008. Like Riley his license was suspended. The police placed him under arrest and began to search his car. The car contained cocaine, but the court ruled that this was unconstitutional. Gant was not in any risk to destroy evidence or in harm's way because he was locked away in a police car. This same thing went for the Chimel v. California case.

In June of 2014, the Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu filed his final ruling on the educational debate of the teacher tenure laws of California, ruling out five California Educational Code laws. However one day after said ruling, Attorney General Kamala Harris filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of California. The Superior Court favored Vergara’s side claiming the Teacher’s tenure of California unconstitutional because it violates children’s civil rights to an education. “Student’s Matter,” a non-profit organization founded by David Welch, organized nine students to file this case. Their plea was that every student around the world deserves a good education taught by good teachers and the tenure principles in this state makes firing bad teachers almost impossible, giving students in poorer districts an unfair education in comparison to other wealthier, privileged districts. The defendants officially include the State of California, Teacher’s Union supporters Jerry Brown and Tom Torlakson who are the State governor and State Superintendent of Schools respectively, the California’s Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers and the Teacher’s Union of California. This ruling and it’s immediate appeal was and remains a strong source of tension between the Teachers Union and it’s supporters as well as the “Student’s Matter” organization and thousands of impoverished

1. The witness has first had an opportunity to explain or deny it and counsel for the other parties have had an opportunity to ask about it, and

The case of United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) was recognized by the Supreme Court as a warrantless arrest with probable cause in public places did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Since this individual was robbed in a public place a warrantless arrest can exist. However, the officer must have probable cause such as adequate reason that the person had committed a felony crime before an arrest is executed. Therefore, probable cause can be determined by a statement from the victims, witnesses, personal knowledge, observation of the officer, reliable hearsay, and informant tips. Nevertheless, if the crime occurs in an officer present, then a misdemeanant that breach the peace does not need a warrant. On the other hand, each state has

The questions presented to the Supreme Court in Raich v. Gonzales (2005) are whether the Commerce Clause affords Congress the power to ban the growth, use, and sale of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act and whether it can enforce that act against ill people whose doctors have prescribed medical marijuana as a remedy. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice John Paul Stevens employed Justice Stephen Breyer’s strand of pragmatism to answer those questions. The premise of Breyer’s approach is that the Constitution enshrines values and principles, but it grants judges the flexibility to apply those principles to changing circumstances (Yale 11). Hence, pragmatist judges embrace constitutional

Riley v. California is a Supreme Court case that pertains to the Fourth Amendment; specifically, the privacy clause. This case was decided by the Court in 2014 with a unanimous decision for Riley. It came to the Court after the petitioner, Riley, was stopped for a traffic violation and then arrested on a weapons charge. The arresting officer proceeded to search Riley and removed a cell phone from his pocket. After accessing the phone the officer found evidence of gang related activity. The officer took Riley back to the station and a detective that specialized in gang related crime went through the phone and found multiple pictures and videos pertaining to a shooting a few weeks prior. They sought to enhance the charges due to the evidence found on his phone that connected him to the gangs. Riley moved to suppress the evidence that was discovered on his phone; the trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. A number of interests groups appeared as amici in this case including: EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union, Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, Constitutional Accountability Center amongst others submitted briefs in support of the petitioner. Two groups submitted briefs in support of the respondent and those include Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies and Arizona et al.

While, reading the case, Elonis v. United States, I was astonished to see that someone would post something so explicit, offensive, and inhumane. Basically, the case of Elonis v. United States is about a man named Anthony Elonis who is an upcoming rapper and used his stage name, Tone Dougie. His Facebook page consisted of him posting disturbing rap lyrics. Even though Elonis was going through a divorce with his former wife, which did not stop him from writing and posting crude lyrics. Eventually, it got to the point where his wife felt that she was being targeted by his lyrics. According to an article on, New York Times, Elonis wrote that he wanted to see a Halloween costume that included his wife’s “head” on a stick. Obviously, she felt threatened and reported the assaults to the police. Anthony Elonis was convicted for posting threats that targeted his wife, his coworkers, police officers, a kindergarten class, and even an FBI agent. Although Elonis argued that his posting are not considered to be a “true threat” and that he is protected under the First Amendment. I believe he wanted to cause fear towards his wife, Tara and therefore, is his lyrics are a true threat. Basically, a true threat is defined as something a person would consider to be “purposely” harmful and cause pain. Elonis mentioned that his post were not offended nor were the threatening anybody. He stated that he did not have the intent of trying to harm anyone, he was just trying

1.Earlier points of law that Justice Brennan used to support the Court opinion in this case is to say that the government has an interest in encouraging proper treatment of the flag, however, is not to say that is may criminally punish a person for burning a flag as a political protest.

The Exclusionary rule requires that any evidence taken into custody be obtained by police using methods that violates an individual constitutional rights must be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that individual. This rule is judicially imposed and arose relatively recently in the development of the U.S. legal system. Under the common law, the seizure of evidence by illegal means did not affect its admission in court. Any evidence, however obtained, was admitted as long as it satisfied other evidentiary criteria for admissibility, such as relevance and trustworthiness. The exclusionary rule was developed in 1914 and applied to the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, and was limited to a prohibition on the use