Leon Vs Usa Case Study

Facts: Abel Lopez was attacked in “Los Angeles in October 2009”. While cashing a check he spoke to a man who was identified as petitioner Walter Fernandez. After being asked a series of questions by Walter Abel was attacked and chased. The reason being is that Abel was in the territory of the “Drifters”, a gang that wasn’t very welcoming to people being in there territory. While running Abel called 911 but Fernandez stopped him by whistling causing four men to appear and attack Lopez as well as stealing any valuables in his possession which consisted of “$400 in cash” as well as a cell phone and wallet. The police arrived and the incident was suspected to have have gang involvement.

Facts: On August22, 2009, While David Leon Riley was driving, the police officer stopped him because he noticed that Riley is driving with an expired registration tags. At the same time, the police officer found that Riley’s license is suspended. Which led the officer to seize his car in order to turn it to the department policy. However, while passing through the process of impounding the car another police officer was searching in Riley’s car and suddenly found two handguns under the hood. As a result, Riley was arrested. After searching about Riley occurrence and situation, an officer found that Riley has some items that are related to a gangs and bloods the officer took Riley’s cell phone “a smart phone” from his pocket and search inside the phone, the officer found picture of Riley in front of a car that was used in a crime scene “shooting”, so based on that Riley was charged that he involved in that crime. However, Riley restrained The State Alleged which is an enhanced sentence according to the crimes the cave been committed to Riley, he restrained that because the officer violets Fourth Amendment which is prohibiting searching or seizing without a warrant. Finally, the trail court

nation that holds the most diverse population in the world, a nation where many other languages

The California Court of Appeal found the warrantless search was justified by Rojas’s written and verbal consent. The court agreed with the majority of the federal circuits, in that, this case was “indispensable to the decision in Randolph.” The decision was ultimately concluded that a tenant’s objection has no force if he or she is not physically present. Therefore held, the warrantless search was lawful because Rojas; a co-tenant, consented. Fernandez was denied review in the California Court of Appeal, however certiorari was granted.

The most crucial part of this case, comes down to one word: reaction. Furthermore, Los Angeles Police Officers, Christopher Conley and Jennifer Pederson, did what their instincts told them to do- which was react. Angel Mendez and Jennifer Lynn Garcia were hiding out in a shack, and Mendez was holding a gun. Both officers felt threatened, and they did what trained police officers are told to do, along with what anyone that knows how to react, would have done. If one feels threatened, one is going to whatever it takes to protect one’s self. The United States Supreme Court should rule in favor of the Los Angeles Police Department because officer’s Christopher Conley and Jennifer Pederson had every right to react the way the did,

The case of U.S. v. Lopez (1995) was the case of a young man in 12th grade named Alfonso Lopez Jr. who brought a loaded gun to school and was arrested and charged under Texas law. The state charges were later dismissed and federal agents charged him because he violated the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990. This acts states that it is unlawful for people to bring firearms to a place that "the individual knows, or has a reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." He was charged by federal agents because he violated a federal criminal law, however this was also dismissed because it was unconstitutional. This was the big issue surrounding this case. The act was unconstitutional because the Supreme Court said congress went above its constitutional

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.

The thermal technology is an uncommon tool to the general public. The police officers did not get a warrant to do this. The use of this technology should not be used to further obtain a search warrant for his home, it violates the defendants Fourth Amendment rights.

If I had been a justice on the Supreme Court, I would have to say that the major problem with this case is that Albert Leon should not use the fourth amendment as a way to help him in this particular case because I feel that the police officers did have enough evidence and support to issue a search warrant. The police officers were just trying to do their job and used a search warrant to Albert Leon’s house, which they found a large amount of illegal drugs. I would have to say that would have been enough evidence for me to see that Leon should go to jail and be punished for even having illegal drugs in his possession. The police officers had done more investigation and found out that Leon has been arrested before in 1980. Leon’s lawyer felt

I believe it is explicitly clear that this business owner should continue to grow and sell marijuana from his store. According to the state law in California he is operating completely within the confines of the law. However, now the debate begins, does the federal law concerning marijuana supersede California’s state law; I believe it does not. According to article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution the Congress of the United States has the power, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. Therefor since the marijuana is not being sold across state lines, the federal government should have zero jurisdiction in the matter. But because of the Supreme Courts decision in Wickard v.

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 defendant, Jim through his lawyer, has the right to appeal for another hearing of his case in a supreme court. When a state court decision is not satisfactory to the defendant because of lack of reasonable explanation, the defendant can ask for clarification for the decision made. The search and seizure of illegal drugs in Mr. Jim’s house was by nature illegal. To begin with the officers were acting on an invalid search warrant which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and a police misconduct. The Fourth Amendment was implemented to guard the citizen's privacy rights and restricts the police against unreasonable searches and seizures. For this reason, the drugs seized at Jim’s house should not be used as evidence to convict him. Jim

1) Identify audit procedures that, if employed by Ernst & Whinney during the 1981 USSC audit, might have detected the overstatement of the leased and loaned assets account that resulted from the improper accounting for asset retirements.

United States v. Lopez was a landmark case, being the first United States Supreme Court case, since the New Deal, to set limits on Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the United State Constitution. United States v. Lopez dealt with a previous decision made by the Supreme Court called the “Gun-Free Schools Zone Act of 1990,” and whether this act was constitutional. In other words, is Congress given the power by the Constitution to regulate guns in schools under the Commerce Clause?

Distinction of roles between judges and juries is a further fundamental difference between the adversarial and inquisitorial systems. In an adversarial system, there is a division of work between a judge and jury. The role of the judge is to adjudicate the issue of law and to ensure that the trial proceeds comply with the procedural and substantial laws, while the role of the jury is to adjudicate the issue of facts as served by the opposing parties based on the law given by judges. Generally, a judge will not interfere in jury’s decision making, but this approach varies subject to matters being decided in the criminal or civil cases. In civil cases, a judge has a power to set aside a decision taken by jury if such decision was not made in accordance with the applicable law. However, in criminal cases a judge does not