United States V. Melgar Case Study

1.Probable cause is a set of facts surrounding a specific circumstances that leads a “reasonable person” to believe an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. Probable cause is required in the instances of an arrest, search and seizure and the issuance of a warrant. To ESTABILISH reasonable cause the officer can use any trustworthy information. For example the office could use his/her experience, informant information, first hand observations or knowledge, victim reports, anonymous tips, or hearsay.

United States v. Rosario, 962 F.2d 733, 736 (7th Cir. 1992). It would be a situation where it would be “obvious” that the party consenting has the ability to do so. The Second and Eighth Circuits have ruled similarly to the Seventh Circuit with regards to the obvious standard. These circuits have stated that as long as a police officer is reasonable in believing there is apparent authority by a third party, the search is legal. Moore v. Andreno, 505 F.3d 203, 209 (2d Cir. 2007). United States v. Almeida-Perez, 549 F.3d 1162, 1170 (8th Cir. 2008). The courts have ruled this way because an exception to the Fourth Amendment regarding warrantless searches states that “either actual or apparent authority will do.” Rosario, 962 F.2d at 737. Actual or apparent authority can be assessed by looking for an indicating factor of authority. Id. An indicating factor of authority would be something such as a person who opens the door of an apartment referring to it as “his apartment” or indicating that he lives there permanently. The obvious standard needs there to be reasonable belief of authority to be met. Luckily, there was definitely reasonable belief for authority in this

Finally, consent search very supportive to police officer when they get consent to search the person property because instead of having the police officer getting warrant they can just search specific place for instances like a truck of a vehicle. For example, Strauss, Rebecca. Author of “We can do this the Easy Way Or the Hard Way: The use of Deceit to Induce Consent Searches." States, “Once the owner agrees to the search, the police have received consent to search any area in his home where they reasonably may find evidence of the crime they claimed to be investigating. Consent search is like general warrant fails to meet the fourth amendment particularity requirement because it to general. Strauss, Rebecca also states, “Like general warrants,

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

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.

1. How, if at all, can you distinguish Greber from other instances of payment for professional services? Suppose the percentage Dr. Greber paid to the physicians had not exceeded Medicare’s guideline? Would that payment still amount to prohibited remuneration in this court’s eyes?

47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 652 (1995). “Reasonableness” is “measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances” Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39(1996), and “whether a particular search meets the reasonableness standard ‘ “is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual 's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Vernonia School Dist. 47J, at pp. 652–653.

“Mel is a 19 year old white male, living in a small rural town in Colorado (Argosy University, 2015).” This particular individual has been presented with a series of life changing events that involves illegal possession of marijuana and sexual exploitation of a minor. According to sources Mel agreed to an oral sex arrangement with a underage person for an illegal substance. Extensive information regarding Mel’s childhood, family, employment, and social interaction was provided for review; however, the public defender assigned to Mel’s case believes that the offender is intellectually challenged due to his lack of understanding of the legal consequences. The accused individual appreciates the fact that himself, along with the underage friend

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

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

To begin, this Court shall review Jurisdiction over this matter. Congress passed a federal statute that reads “The Supreme Court of the United States shall have original Jurisdiction over any cases involving this offense…” as to punishing individuals to three years in prison for the use, transport and/or to consume butter beer. To this, we refer to our Constitution that establishes matters that have original jurisdiction, Art. III S. 2 “The Judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority… In all other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction”. The case of Marbury v. Madison interprets matters of original Jurisdiction, “The 1789 act to establish the Judicial courts of the United States authorizes the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus, however this can only be granted when the Court has original jurisdiction, in al other cases, the Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as law and fact…” furthermore, we consider, if this statute was good law, it would make the state a party, to that we turn to Cohens v. Virginia, a case that reviews the Jurisdiction of this Court in criminal cases, which came to the conclusion that just because a state is involved in a criminal party claim, the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction over it. As established by the Constitution, and case law

However, the judge’s reasoning to reach this decision as well as its potential social effect is questionable.

In United States v. Sitlington, the Tenth Circuit noted that while it had yet to determine whether an inventory search log “that lacks sufficient detail” violates the Fourth Amendment, other circuits are split on the issue. The court found it unnecessary to answer the

The Fifth Circuit confronted the question of whether sniffing by a dog is a search in terms of an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The appellate court noted that most courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have held that law enforcement use of canines for sniffing objects does not constitute a search. Specifically, the appellate court referenced cases involving checked luggage, shipped packages, public lockers, and cars on public streets. According to the court, a reasonable expectation of privacy does not extend to the airspace surrounding these objects. The court maintained that what has evolved is a doctrine of “public smell,” equivalent to the “plain view” theory (that is, an object in plain view can be seized under certain circumstances).

Marbury v. Madison was a milestone United States Supreme Court case in which the Court framed the premise for the activity of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. The historic point choices aided characterize the limit between the constitutionally isolate executive and judicial branches of the American type of government. At the very end of his term, President John Adams had made numerous federal arrangements, including William Marbury. Thomas Jefferson, the new president, declined to perceive the arrangement of Marbury. The ordinary routine of making such arrangements was to convey a commission, or notice, of arrangement. This was regularly done by the Secretary of State. Jefferson's