Juvenile Justice Case Summary

Philip J. Cooper v. Charles Austin 837 S. W. 2d 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992)

In the supreme court Muehler v. Mena case, Mena sued the officers in federal district court for violating her 4th amendments rights. The fourth amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The officers heard that there was that she was affiliated with gang violence and deadly weapons so they searched the house that Mena and others were in. The officers did things like handcuff Mena and the others. They also questioned her about her immigration status. She believed this violated her 4th amendment rights that should protect her from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Mena tried suing the officers in federal district court for violating her Fourth Amendment rights after this. She felt

The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court, endorsing this test as generally applicable to all claims of constitutionally excessive force brought against government officials, rejecting Graham’s argument that it was error to require him to prove that the allegedly excessive force was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, and holding that a reasonable jury applying the Johnson v. Glick test to his evidence could not find that the force applied was constitutionally excessive.

The question brought up to the court resulting from this case was, was the evidence admitted at trial from Riley's cell phone discovered through a search that violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches? The Supreme Court ruled

Mapp appealed again to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1961. The case basically came down to this fundamental question: may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admissible in state criminal proceedings? 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?and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.? The Fourth Amendment, however, does not define when a search or seizure is

This was appealed until it reached the Supreme Court for Muller's reasoning that the law passed by the state of Oregon was unconstitutional, therefore he should not have to pay the fine. Written in his brief, he states:

Issue: Whether respondent’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights were violated when he was subjected to a search of his person, albeit under probable cause, without a warrant and prior to a formal arrest.

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. The Court found that the officer acted on more than an “hunch” and that “a reasonably prudent

According to Bartollas and Schmalleger (2014), the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges recommends that a script be used by the judge to ensure that due process rights of the juvenile are maintained. These due process rights are given to the juvenile as a result of the Kent, Gault, Winship, Breed v. Jones, and McKeiver cases (p. 373). The Kent v. United States case was a critical case that involved the right to counsel of juveniles in criminal cases. In “Kent v. United States the Court was narrowly focused on whether a child had a right to due process protections in hearings to determine if his case should be transferred out of juvenile court so that he could be tried as though he were an adult criminal defendant” (Mosher,

Juvenile fire setting is not really an issue I know much about. However, after doing some reading on the topic I could like to believe that I have learned some interesting things. Charles T. Putnam and John T. Kirkpatrick report some very interesting facts on Juvenile Fire setting on the Juvenile Justice Bulletin. It’s quite alarming how in a year 300 people can die due to arson. Not to mention that $300 million dollars’ worth of property is destroyed. And that out of every hundred lives that are lost 85 of these lives lost are children. The reading that we were assigned gave us a cornucopia of knowledge of firesetting from the terminology to theoretical formulations related to Juvenile fire setting. In 2002, the National association of

In Tennessee there are multiple ways a Juvenile can be tried as an adult. If the court found reason to believe that “ the child committed the offense alleged, (2) the child is not committable to a mental institution, and (3) the interests of the community require that the child be placed under legal restraint” (Ojjdp, 2016). The law records different factors to be analyzed by the court in making these discoveries. For the most part, the juvenile court's choice is not instantly appealable; be that as it may, if a nonlawyer settles on the choice to exchange the case, a unique arrangement qualifies the child for an instant de novo rehearing criminal court level (Ojjdp, 2016). A child who has been transferred from a juvenile court by the choice of a non lawyer is qualified for

The Court of Appeals reversed and filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: "(1) apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; (2) deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a

Each year in Canada, over 400,000 adult criminal cases are brought in front of a judge. That number may seem incredibly high, but considering the amount of charges brought against individuals daily, it really is not all that high. I had the opportunity to see a number of different adult criminal court proceedings, from bail hearings to guilty pleas, but the one that I’m going to analyze today is the sentencing hearing of a young man who was charged with uttering threats, breach of undertaking and two counts of breach of probation.