Sykes V. United States Summary

My role as Allen Brookson is significant in the case of Brookson v. Carter because I was the first to be wrongfully attacked by Wendell Carter. My role will help to prove that Carter is guilty for various reasons, and why Allen Brookson and Fred Brookson should be offered compensations for both severe physical and posttraumatic stress. The physical injuries sustained were taken to the hospital that resulted in a detrimental medical expense and traumatic stress such has weight loss, chronic anxiety, and insomnia. Essentially, the Brooksons should win this case because Carter committed a Class B misdemeanor by illegally carrying a knife that can injury someone, and we will, too, because of Assault of the third degree, Carter committed assault

Details: Prior to my arrival, dispatch checked Shawn through NCIC/CCIC. Dispatch advised he had a valid warrant, which is as follows; felony failure to appear, $0 bond and docket number D0392017CR000880.

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

Following a fight with a friend outside a bar, Floyd Johnson, went to his house, got his .22 rifle and ten cartridges, went back to the bar, crawled under a pickup truck across the street and sat in wait for his friend. He later testified that he at first intended to shoot the friend to “pay him back” for the beating he received earlier.

The petitioner, Morris A. Kent Jr., was initially detained at the age of 14, due to multiple home burglaries and many attempted purse snatchings. Morris Kent

Extreme sumarization of r v brown( key point of arguments used by the five judges)

An example of racial profiling that involves both Stop-and-Frisk and DWB is the incident behind Whren v. United States. The incident behind the case involved two black men, Michael Whren and James Lester Brown, in Washington D.C. who were driving a truck through a high drug area. An unmarked police car with two officers pulled up next to the truck that was stopped at a stop sign for an unreasonable amount of time and then sped away at a high speed. The police officers then pulled them over and saw a clear plastic bag. Under the suspicion that it was drugs, they searched the car and ended up finding a substantial amount of drugs. The decision of Whren v. United States says that if a police officer has a reasonable suspicion, he can stop the car for that reason alone. There is no need for a traffic offense because ‘driving suspiciously’ is enough to warrant a stop. While yes, they did see the plastic bag and that was the caused for the search, they stopped them because they were African American men in a high drug area and drove suspiciously. There is no saying that if they were two white men that they would not have been pulled over as well, however, if they were two black men not in a high drug area and drove suspiciously they would have still been more likely to be pulled over than two white men. This shows the underlying problem is not that the law directly discriminates, it’s that the police who enforce and the society who follows it that have biases and stereotypes that

John Adams, on the last day of his term, appointed forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices under the Organic Act, which was an attempt by the Federalists to take over the judicial branch before Thomas Jefferson took the office. The commissions were not delivered before the end of Adam’s term, so Thomas Jefferson claimed they were invalid and did not honor them. William Marbury was one of the appointed justices of the peace and appealed directly to the Supreme Court when he was denied his position. Due to the Judiciary Act of 1789, Marbury wanted the Supreme Court to make James Madison (Secretary of State) deliver the commissions.

With the ruling of the Monroe v. Pape case in 1961, it held the local governments could now he held liable in federal courts. It would have to be proven that there was a violation of an individuals' constitutional rights and that the damage had been committed in violation to a policy or custom of that local government. The main causes for liability come from allegations of non or improper performance of their duties and responsibilities however, negligence does not always amount to criminal negligence. Probation officers (PO), working on behalf of the state, are only immune if it can be proven that their actions were in good faith.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting discrimination. With the condition to receive preclearance stated in section 5 of the Act from the Department of Justice before making any changes affecting the voting process, also came four other prohibitions. The prohibition of literacy test or other similar test or devices as a prerequisite to voter registration is one prevention. The requirement of jurisdictions with significant language minority populations to provide non-English ballots and oral voting instructions is another. Third is the prohibition of vote dilution, which is the remapping of districts to suppress the minority vote. The final provision was one of the most controversial of the Act. It established the federal oversight

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

In the year 1803 the case of Marbury v. Madison was brought before the Supreme Court in order to address the issue of William Marbury’s appointment as federal circuit judge. This created a unique and complex challenge for the Supreme Court of the time because they were operating under no legal precedent, which meant that they had no prior cases to reference to reach a ruling. The issue came to a head after the Judiciary Act of 1801 allowed for President John Adams to appoint sixteen new circuit judges one of them being William Marbury. However, before Secretary of State Marshall ran out of time before he was able to deliver Marbury’s appointment. When the new Secretary of State James Madison entered office, he refused to deliver Marbury’s appointment, claiming that it was too late. Outraged, Marbury filed a writ of mandamus against Madison in order to force him to complete the specified action, which in this case was to deliver the commission. However, through complex political maneuvering the Judiciary Act of 1802, was enacted which repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 reestablishing the Judiciary Act of 1789 and postponing the case until 1803. One of the key issues in the case was then if William Marbury was entitled to a remedy for the deprivation of his right to his commission. Chief Justice John Marshall with a narrow and technical ruling then determined that since President Adams with his signature had completed Marbury’s commission of appointment he was entitled to the

Weeks v. United States (1914) is considered to be a landmark case and the first to address the Fourth Amendment in a Supreme Court setting. On December 21, 1911, police officers in Kansas City, Missouri entered the house of Mr. Fremont Weeks, who was working, using his hidden key. During this warrantless search of the home officers acquired papers, letters, books, and other items. These items were then used in court to prove Mr. Weeks was guilty of sending lottery tickets through the U.S. mail based on the evidence unlawfully collected from his residence. Mr. Weeks then requested that the U.S. Supreme Court review his case. The ruling of this court was reversed, due to the evidence seized during the illegal search. It was noted that this

The judicial branch, in its conception as outlined in Article III of the constitution was designated the “power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases (The White House)”. However, since the ratification of the constitution, much like the other two branches of government, the judicial branch has also experienced an expanded delegation of authority and power. This notion is evidenced in the 1803 decision on the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review by ”blocking last-minute appointments by outgoing President John Adams (Chegg)” by declaring that these actions should not be permitted because the supreme court, under chief justice john Marshall declared them unconstitutional(Cornell). This set forth a very powerful precedent for judicial review, one that continues to play a critical role in political discourse today. Although the evolution of the judiciary commenced following the fallout of the 1803 decision, the courts have delegated to themselves a controversial role as policy-makers in response to societal demands and stresses placed upon the political system specifically during and after the civil rights movement that occurred in the United States during the 20th century. This expanded role into the realm of actual policy making is derived from the belief that the constitution is indeed a living and flexible document that must retain the capability for change. As the

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose