Rodriguez V. Case Brief

Case Facts: Roy Caballes was stopped for speeding by an Illinois state trooper Daniel Gillette. During the traffic stop another state trooper Craig Graham of the Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, overheard the stop on the radio and showed up to the scene with a narcotics detection dog. While the first trooper was writing Roy Caballes a warning ticket for speeding the second trooper walked around Roy’s car with the narcotics detection dog. The dog alerted that it had detected narcotics at the rear end of the car which subsequently led to the state troopers searching the trunk of the car. Upon searching the trunk of the car the state troopers found a large quantity of marijuana which consequently led to the arrest of Roy Caballes. The entire incident lasted no longer than 10 minutes. Roy Caballes was convicted of a narcotics offence and was sentenced to 12 years in prison and ordered to pay a $256,136 fine.

On June 26, 2015, Mr. Steve Gerecke, an Albuquerque, New Mexico resident, confronted six youths allegedly attempting to burglarize his home after gaining access through the garage with a remote control removed from his wife’s car. The group of youth appeared to have been the same roving mob reported earlier to the police. Witnesses and police reports complained of burglarized homes and cars with the removal credit cards, cellphone, keys, and other valuables. In addition to the burglaries, the group allegedly committed grand the auto. Upon the confrontation of Mr. Gerecke and the youth, an escalation of bravado ensued. At this time, one of the youth armed with pistol, shot Mr. Gerecke multiple times killing him in the driveway of his home. Well

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.

Cal. Evid. Code § 352 (West. 2016) Evidence of gang membership cannot be admitted when the sole relevance is to show the defendant’s criminal propensities or bad character; such evidence is only admissible when it is logically relevant to a material issue in the particular prosecution. People v. Perez (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 470, 477. The court can admit this relevant gang evidence to establish the defendant’s motive, intent, or some fact concerning the charged offenses so long as the probative value of the

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

Case Briefing #2 Vizcaino v. US Dist. Court for WD of Wash., 173 F. 3d 713 (9th Cir.1999)

In 1996, the state of California passed the Compassionate Use Act, which legalized the use of medical marijuana. California was one of the few states at the time to legalize the use of medical marijuana, while the federal law upholds its authority to restrict citizens from using marijuana. The Compassionate Use Act conflicts with the Controlled Substances Act, which is a law enacted by Congress to regulate the use of marijuana. Nine years later, the Supreme Court is presented the case of Gonzales v. Raich. Angela Raich, who suffered from a serious illness, decided to grow her own medical marijuana for personal use. Raich actions were legal in the eyes of California, while on a federal level the country did not approve of the idea or use of

Plaintiff claims false arrest and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff states he was arrested for criminal possession of marijuana however no marijuana was recovered. PO Hernandez, PO Bonet, and PO Heredia were members of the anti-crime in PSA 6. Officers observed via Viper camera plaintiff and two other apprehended individuals smoking marijuana in the park behind a housing project. Officers approached plaintiff and two individuals and conducted a stop and frisk. Officers did not recover any contraband or marijuana was recovered. Plaintiff and the two individuals were transported to the precinct where a bag of marijuana was recovered during a search at the precinct. Officers could not determine ownership of the marijuana therefore all three were

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?

Around 600 Mexican Americans who fit the term “zoot-suiters” ( a person who wears ballooned pants and long coats) were rounded up in efforts to catch the criminal. The court argued that their look alone was enough to prove they were deliquents in one way or another and should be held responsible for their actions. Altough appearances do distinguish gang members from regular civilians the mass gathering of around 600 Mexicans for one individuals murder shows the lack of professional expirence. It also serves as a pedestal to say that these police offers weren’t looking for an individual based on factual evidence but based their prejudice beliefs tried to round up and get place a large group of Mexicans in the court of law under biased pretences. It is an injustice to hold so many people accountable for a crime based on their looks let alone get so many people of one ethnic group involved just because they look like they are from a gang. On January 12, 1943 in the case of People v. Zamora, presided by Judge Charles Fricke, the court found this to be enough evidence to sentence seventeen of the accused to life in prison to a year in the county jail. Five were found innocent. Henry Leyvas along with two other males were found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life in

“Erik and Lyle went on a shooting rampage and killed their parents, Kitty and Jose Menendez on August 20, 1989. The theory of the prosecutions supporting charges of murder was that these killings were motivated by greed and the brothers’ desire to acquire by early inheritance their parent’s considerable wealth” Menendez v. Terhune (2005). This was not the case at all. “Erik and Lyle claimed at trial that the killings were result of years of physical, sexual and psychological abuse, and thus not murder, but only manslaughter” Menendez v. Terhune (2005).

Even though gangs provide a sense of support, the "values" instilled in members are horribly dangerous to society. Murders and drive-by shottings go unpunished more often than not in areas like the Henry Horner Homes. Gangs have become powerful enough that high-ranking members who are forced to face the law are protected by high-priced attorneys and investigators (163).

Proposition 21, California's Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998, sought to impose and exact severe punishments on juvenile offenders as young as the age of fourteen for serious and gang related felonies. This paper will analyze and address the impact this legislation has on juvenile offenders since its enactment.

(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to

Gang crimes, such as graffiti, burglaries, murder and extortion, are devastating to a community’s well-being and sense of security. “The vast majority of violent incidents involving gang members continue to result from fights over