Kelley V. Swag Summary

On October 31, 1963 a Cleveland Police Detective stopped and arrested three men outside a department store window. The officer charged two of the men with carrying concealed weapons. One of the men involved in this stop and frisk, John W. Terry, challenged the ruling, stating that it was against his 4th Amendment rights to be searched for weapons by an off duty police officer without probable cause for arrest. On June 10, 1968 the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the policeman stating he had more than enough reason to stop these men and conduct a search. This case has been used as a guideline in many other rulings since 1968 that involve what may or may not be an “unreasonable search and seizure” under the 4th Amendment.

1. Identify and describe the three possible alternatives for applying the Fourth Amendment to “stop and frisk” situations. Also, identify which alternative the U.S. Supreme Court adopted and explain why.

An unlawful strip search was conducted on Matthew Green by Toronto police on Nov. 3, 2016. It was agreed upon by watchdogs that Green, who was arrested for public intoxication, should not have been subject to a strip search for this offence. The Toronto Police and Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) said that it was a police misconduct of a less serious designation, hence no public disciplinary hearing, but Green insisted the strip search was ‘serious, unconstitutional behaviour’. Young, Green’s lawyer, argued that there was no purpose of complaining if the complainant did not know the punishment being served by Chambers, the officer who ordered the search. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that strip searches should not be implemented routinely, yet legal experts called it ‘an epidemic of unjustified strip searches’. Toronto police and OIPRD rejected making the case serious.

Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was heard in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Johnson v. State, 755 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision of the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District holding that “Johnson’s right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was violated by the statute. States cannot pass laws which take away freedoms that are promised under the United States Constitution, and in passing section 42.09(a)(3), the state had deprived Johnson of his constitutional right to express his views about the government.” Johnson v. State, 706 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1986). The Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District had affirmed the decision of the Dallas County Criminal Court which found Mr. Johnson guilty of desecration of the American flag. State v. Johnson, No. CCR 84-46013-J (Crim. Ct. No. 7, Dallas Cnty. Tex. Dec. 13,

As crime rates rise, police must come up with new methods to counteract these increases. Many of these methods come with pros and cons that may affect the way the public views Police officers and law enforcement in general. Some of these methods may seem like a violation to people’s rights, even though they may be constitutional. One of these methods known as Stop and Frisk is one of the most widely debated topics in America when it comes to dealing with Police actions and Constitutional rights.

In establishing a § 1983 claim the claimant must first determine which constitutional right was violated. In this case, Dave Douglas, Taylor Reveley, and George Walkers claims fall under the Fourth Amendment because they have not been arrested or detained for pretrial. Each plaintiff will argue that the police officers seized them unreasonably and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. First, the claimant must establish that the government actor was acting under “the color of law.” In this case, the police officers were acting in their official capacity as on-duty cops. HotCop, as a possible contractor with law enforcement may also operate under the color of law and therefore be subject to suit as well. This will be addressed further later in the memo. Each potential plaintiff and the possible defenses to their claims is addressed below.

The constitutional issue involved in this case involved the incorporation of the 4th Amendment's prohibition against the

The Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell displays some clues to the values of early twentieth century American society. The interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution is the lynchpin of the decision, and the values of the court can be derived from it. In this essay I will demonstrate that the ambiguity of the Amendment in question has significant consequences, the ethics of the interpretation of the Amendment is derived form the paternalistic nature of the Constitution, and that equality of the law is subservient to the desire for a homogeneous and comfortable cultural environment.

A police officer responded to a call about an assault by a man against a woman. Upon arrival, he asked the man (later identified as Mr. Hiibel) multiple times to identify himself, to which he refused. Mr. Hiibel was then charged with “willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office” (Larry Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada, 2004). After being arrested, charged, and convicted, Mr. Hiibel took his case to the U.S Supreme Court because he felt that the Nevada law that requires citizens disclose their identity to a police officer violated his 4th and 5th Amendment rights. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rejected his claim that the law was unconstitutional. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy says that the search was not unreasonable based on the fact that there was reasonable suspicion (4th Amendment to the U.S constitution) and that simply stating his name was not self-incriminating (5th Amendment to the U.S Constitution).

An indication that disproves the claims that racial profiling is an essential policing tactic centers on the idea that it can lead to unreasonable accusations. In the article, Jim Crow Policing, Herbert states “Several plaintiffs detailed how their ordinary daily lives were interrupted by cops bent on harassment for no good reason” (Herbert 11). This shows that police are making things up to get citizens in trouble. Police say they stop people for wearing “inappropriate attire for the season”, which is unacceptable, since the first amendment depicts the idea that you have the right to free expression, that means that the government can not forbid us from believing what we want, or what we want to wear. Sometimes police are not wrong about suspicious attires, for example wearing a bomber jacket to the airport on a warm day. In these cases, the statistics shows that the police suspension on people

The legal issue underlying the lawsuit is whether a search for weapons without reasonable cause for arrest can be regarded as an unreasonable search based on the Fourth Amendment to the American Constitution. The most appropriate answer to this legal issue is that a police officer has the

Kelley v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12 was a 2003 wrongful termination case heard by the 10th circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. The issue at hand was if the plaintiff’s 14th amendment procedural due process rights had been violated when he was employment terminated by the defendant school district. The school district had relieved the plaintiff from his position as the school’s head football and wrestling coach after the plaintiff had been ejected from a football game he had been coaching. The plaintiff’s had argued that the school district had violated the coach’s constitutionally granted due process rights by not giving the coach 30-days notice of termination or a post-termination hearing to explain himself. The district court ultimately

The lower court finds it is unconstitutional as there was no basis to use the police power for a public

TYPE OF ACTION: This is a criminal case, did officers Trevizo violate the Fourth Amendment 's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures during a routine traffic stop for suspended registration. Johnson was search even after he comply with officer Trevizo’s command. The Arizona Supreme Court denied review. We granted certiorari, and now reverse the judgment of the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Whether the officer violated Mr. Howard’s Fourth Amendment rights when he performed a stop and frisk based solely on an anonymous tip?