Part Seven-Dissent

Part Seven – Dissent
There was a justice who was not for the decision at all, as well:

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens joins, dissenting.

“I agree that the Court's per curiam opinion correctly states the law, but because respondent's counsel is not a member of this Court's bar and did not wish to become one, respondent has not filed a brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari. I believe we should not summarily reverse in a criminal case, irrespective of the merits, where the respondent is represented by a counsel unable to file a response, without first inviting an attorney to file a brief as amicus curiae in response to the petition for certiorari. For this reason, I dissent.”

I totally agree that they should have not dropped a reverse on a criminal case as well. I believe that many people, other than Stevens felt the same way. Not only did they disappoint me, but they made me feel and think about what kind of nation we are living under. Are we all just playing against the rules? What if the rule does not protect us from the safety that we claim to have in the United States? The evidence was there, and the rules obviously showed that it would be wrong in that situation.

Part 6- My Own Argument

Part 6 – My Own Argument

Honestly, I have to disagree with the ruling. There is hard evidence that the case was allowed to throw the dealer in prison, and have that settled. But having the case reversed and to issue them a petition, does not make any sense to me. I understand fully, everything about the fourth amendment and I respect that decision, but the police could have been easily punished as well to an extent for that situation, and give them some sort leeway because they actually had the probable cause, reacted fast enough for their evidence to be correct. I would actually grant them the vehicle search and the automobile exception and just leave it at that.

Obviously, with that type of situation, drug dealers and victims of it, will run and hide once they know that the police is out to get them. They will run, and run fast if the police will not react faster. I am personally not for drugs. I believe it is useless, pointless, and I hate it because it kills people, and some of my loved ones are addicted to them. They need to be contraband, and we need to start by busting all the providers of these drugs. The ruling was shown that there was hard evidence of the drug dealer, and there was no other reaction to it. The issue totally turned around to it being about the search warrant, that we could enforce!

Part 5- Rule of Law

Part 5 -Rule of Law

According to what the Courts have agreed upon of the case, they have used previous cases as a resource, which was previously stated. In a nutshell, since the case of Kevin Dyson was that there was probable cause against him, driving in and out of state, buying illegal, contraband drugs, and selling them illegally to the public, police react to arrest him and throw him into court. Before hand, police stop Dyson, and search his vehicle, find the contraband, and bust him with an arrest. Police did have enough time to issue a search warrant to actually avoid all this mess they have to go through, because police did not issue a search warrant at the time of the scene.

So as they used the previous cases as a resource to help them use for their decision, they have used not only cases, but also amendments as well. The fourth amendment states that, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/ Which has also helped the come up with the decision.

Part 4-Reasoning of the Court

Part 4- Reasoning of the Court

Upon coming to a decision, the court used previous trials to help them come up with the decision for this case. “We made this clear in United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 809 (1982), when we said that in cases where there was probable cause to search a vehicle "a search is not unreasonable if based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant has not been actually obtained." http://law.onecle.com/ussc/527/527us467.html

Since the police brought up another case to use as an alibi, they brought up the case of Ross and Labron. That case stated that, “The holding of the Court of Special Appeals that the "automobile exception" requires a separate finding of exigency in addition to a finding of probable cause is squarely contrary to our holdings in Ross and Labron.” http://law.onecle.com/ussc/527/527us467.html

Although the court knew how bad the case looked upon them reversing it, they used previous cases as resources and saw what was fair. The court did grant them petition for certiorari, and reverse for a reason and had their evidence and resources to back them up on it. Logically, it did not take the courts to decide very long, so I believe they did a very good job.

Part 3-Decision of the Court

Part 3- Decision of the Court
About ten years ago, the decision was made on June 21, 1999 stating that the decision was reversed. At first, the court was for the victim being caught with illegal drugs, but once the victim has came up with examples and brought out the fourth amendment for the search warrant, the case was reversed. The police had turned to the automobile exception act for them to search the vehicle without a warrant, but the police did not provide any other hard evidence other than them having probable cause that the victim had the cocaine.

The outcome of the case was that they reversed everything, and a brief was not made. They are holding Dyson’s drug addiction for an automobile exception to the fourth amendment. Because of all of this, the court grants the petition for certiorari and reverse.

“Applying this rule to the facts of the case, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that although there was "abundant probable cause," the search violated the Fourth Amendment because there was no exigency that prevented or even made it significantly difficult for the police to obtain a search warrant. Id., at 426, 712 A. 2d, at 579. The Maryland Court of Appeals denied certiorari. 351 Md. 287, 718 A. 2d 235 (1998). We grant certiorari and now reverse.” http://law.onecle.com/ussc/527/527us466.html

“In this case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that the Fourth Amendment requires police to obtain a search warrant before searching a vehicle which they have probable cause to believe contains illegal drugs.” http://law.onecle.com/ussc/527/527us465.html

Illicit Trade-EOC

What I think about illicit trade is that I think it is very, very inappropriate and I am a hundred percent surly against it. It makes me very upset to see how much illicit trades are going on globally, and how a lot of leaders of countries are being involved, and letting this kind of crime happen. It is a very disgusting crime that goes on, and for it to be very popularly done, makes it that much more worse. One day, I plan to own my own company or fashion boutique, and plan to sell some of my own accessories and jewelry for a little costlier price point because I also want it to be a couture line. If I were to see counterfeits of my own brands or own designs being sold for cheap, it would not only give me a bad reputation because the quality will not be as great as the real product, but it would also make me lose revenue, and business because people will buy a look for less. Take the Chanel, Louis Vuitton and Prada bags for example. People will buy the look for the bag, although it is not the same quality, for less.

I also currently work for a company store called Lesportsac that sells durable travel bags made out of ripstop nylon. As our company began to progress, counterfeits were being made, and customers would come into our stores and complain about their unknowingly fake bags being poor quality. It gives our company a bad look, and obviously, we cannot say to their faces that the purse they are holding is a fake because that would only insult and hurt the customer.

So all in all, I do not support the illicit trade, no matter how much money they make, or if that is their only way for survival. I do not care at all. People that make that original product, work hard and put in a lot of effort to gain clientele and exposure for counterfeits to take everything that is left of them. We need to stop counterfeits and all illicit trade!

Issues of the Case-Pt.2

Issue of the case -- what specific concepts and terms were involved – in other words, why is the case before the Court.

“In a brief, per curiam opinion, the Court reiterated its clear precedent that there is no separate exigency requirement for the search of an automobile. Law enforcement agents can search an automobile based solely on probable cause–there is no requirement that they first secure a search warrant. In holding to the contrary, the Court of Special Appeals squarely contravened binding precedent. Because there was abundant probable cause to search the automobile, Dyson's motion to suppress was properly denied.” http://sol.lp.findlaw.com/1998/dyson.html

In this case, the concepts were that the police specifically failed to provide a search warrant to the defendant, Kevin Dyson, for the search of the rental automobile. The police accused probable cause toward the defendant for having loads of cocaine initiating to sell to the public on him. This case is before the court because the police have failed and has violated the constitution’s fourth amendment.

In the constitution, the fourth amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Because the police did not provide Kevin Dyson with the search warrant, because the case was before the court was because he fought to believe that he was accused in the wrong way. Dyson had the right to be shown the search warrant prior to the vehicle search for cocaine. Kevin Dyson admitted to what he did wrong, but fought for the fourth amendment.

Supreme Court

In the case of Maryland vs Dyson, specific concepts and terms such as probable causes, warrants, convictions and amendments were used in the case. These terms are used because of what the case actually is about. The case is about the drug dealer bringing illegal drugs from state to state, smuggling and selling to the public, and once the dealer was caught from the police, the police searched his vehicle and him, without pursuing to show the dealer a search warrant after requesting one. They had probable evidence and a probable cause to search the vehicle and the dealer, but did not pursue a warrant, which he had made a case before the court.

“In this case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that the Fourth Amendment requires police to obtain a search warrant before searching a vehicle which they have probable cause to believe contains illegal drugs.”

This was said in the court and specifically describes the case before the court. I believe that through the amendment, the police should have been a lot more professional, and followed through with the laws and amendments.

http://law.onecle.com/ussc/527/527us466.html

EOC Week 8-Supreme Court Update

EOC-Week Eight
Update on Supreme Court: Maryland Versus Dyson
The update on Supreme Court Maryland Versus Dyson is that the fourth amendment is held toward police to require them to provide a search warrant for vehicles under a probable cause. Since the police had a probable cause to believe that the drug dealer victim was carrying illegal drugs, they should have an easy time to provide a search warrant before actually going through with the search of the car for cocaine. Since they did not show a search warrant to the victim, the case is now reversed. Supreme Court is enforcing the search warrant act to be put upon any time of search with a probable cause.

“The Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed, 122 Md. App. 413, 712 A. 2d 573 (1998), holding that in order for the automobile exception to the warrant requirement to apply, there must not only be probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is contained in the automobile, but also a separate finding of exigency precluding the police from obtaining a warrant. Id., at 424, 712 A. 2d, at 578. Applying this rule to the facts of the case, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that although there was "abundant probable cause," the search violated the Fourth Amendment because there was no exigency that prevented or even made it significantly difficult for the police to obtain a search warrant. Id., at 426, 712 A. 2d, at 579. The Maryland Court of Appeals denied certiorari. 351 Md. 287, 718 A. 2d 235 (1998). We grant certiorari and now reverse.”


http://law.onecle.com/ussc/527/527us466.html

Facts of Case-part 1

“In this case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that the Fourth Amendment requires police to obtain a search warrant before searching a vehicle which they have probable cause to believe contains illegal drugs. Because this holding rests upon an incorrect interpretation of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, we grant the petition for certiorari and reverse.”

In the Maryland versus Dyson case, it is agreed that the police must show a search warrant and hard believable evidence to search a car that is believed to have illegal drugs. What brought this case up was a situation that happened with a hardcore drug dealer in Maryland, who had rented a car and drove to New York and was heard to be returning back to Maryland with a large amount of crack cocaine. Police had taken this information to be very believable, and took action to be on the look out for the specific red Toyota rental car. Little did they know, drug dealer returned back to Maryland in the rental car, and was stopped immediately by the sheriffs and the police. The vehicle was searched, and what was predicted to be found, was there. There were 23 grams of crack cocaine in the car, and victim was immediately arrested. But, according to the Fourth Amendment, searching the vehicle without any warrant, was a big mistake. So because of that, the case was reversed.

http://law.onecle.com/ussc/527/527us468.html

EOC wk 7-Rights as a Property Owner

My Rights as a Property Owner

I believe my rights as a property owner should not be limited. As the owner of the property, I am the person in charge of all payments, damages, and decisions done to the property. But with so many laws, rules and regulations, being a property owner unfortunately gives you many limited rights, which I cannot believe. Just like in the movie, it is plain and obvious to see that by being the property owner, you could have every right to throw out whoever and whatever you want out of your property. But due to many laws and regulations, the government will not let that happen. There are many steps and processing you would need to go through and maybe end up in court, spending money you did not have to begin with. I strongly believe that as a property owner, I have the right to do what I want with my property, just as long as it is legit and appropriate. I do not like the fact that in the movie, the owner of the property was being blamed for something his tenant promised and is forced to act upon, such as paying his security deposit and rent. Although the owner did not settle the situation in the most appropriate manner, it is actual natural acts that he has done, like shut off his electricity and such. Once the owner had that niche to not want that specific tenant in his home and property, he should have every right to throw him out, with his obvious reasons, like not paying his things on time. I did not like the fact that the police limited his property ownership, and told the owner of the property what to do in his own home. So as a property owner, yes, you do have many decisions that can be made up to you, but there are also some things that you cannot control.

Instant extra credit

Three Names I have been called: Brit, Bee, Blaire

Three Jobs I have had in my life (include unpaid if you have to): Chuck E Cheese, Genki Sushi, LeSportsac

Three Places I Have Lived: Hawaii, Las Vegas, Hawaii.

Three TV Shows that I watch: The Hills, Project Runway, MTV

Three places I have been: New York City, Los Angeles, New Jersey

People that e-mail me regularly: Mom, Dad, and Sisters

Three of my favorite foods: Pasta, Sushi, Miso Soup

Three cars I have driven: Cavalier, Corolla-S, Beetle.

Three things I am looking forward to: Graduating, Summer Break, Hawaii Vacation!

EOC-Wk 6 Greed is Good

EOC-wk 6 Greed is Good
Wall Street is just straight up insane. There’s just so much wrong doing, smuggling, and craziness going on there. Although there are a lot of pro’s and con’s about Wall Street and their compensation, bonuses and incentives, do we really believe it is worth it? Just like what the article says, “Wall Street bonuses are getting a bad rap, but they're an important and useful part of the financial services industry.
Taking them away could hamper the economic comeback.”
We begin to think about what good they are actually doing for our financial services industry, but a lot of the careers in Wall Street, are receiving rapidly high bonuses and compensations, but yet we see no change. I understand that the bonuses and incentives is important and necessary for that specific career, but does it needs to be well thought out through these economic crisis times. Another example in the article, that just makes me furiously angry, is when they had rushed to pay out $4billion in bonuses to the Bank of America employees. Is it really worth giving them that much? I feel it is really undeserved for them to be getting these bonuses.
Another outrage I have about Wall Street is that they take all this money to an advantage, which I believe to be very unprofessional and very disappointing to the public. Take John Thain as an example, by using a million dollars to redecorate his office?! I mean, is that really necessary! One way or another, it is going to leak out to the public eye, and people will fight. I just do not agree with the way things are being handled financially on Wall Street. It is very unfair, unprofessional and very disappointing. They need to rethink some things over and come up with a better system!

EOC-wk5

EOC-Bong Hits for Jesus
For an argument like this, I would have to agree with the ruling, in so many different ways, shapes, and forms. Although I do see some points in the students’ point of view, but only to a certain extent. First off, I do not agree with the fact that the student used a religious idol, Jesus, as a part of pro drug abuse. To me, that is just very inconsiderate, disrespectful, and just wrong. I am a very religious member, and I see that as very disturbing and very inappropriate. Those kinds of comments should be kept to oneself. Secondly, I do see where the student is coming from, when he says comments about freedom of speech. I agree, he does have the right to say what he feels and believes, but where he did it, and how he did it was very illegal. Marijuana is an illegal drug in our country, and by advertising it through your freedom of speech, could get you drug busted anywhere, and without a doubt, it will get you in trouble at school, during a school activity.
In the article, it says, “the US Supreme Court rejected Frederick's argument that this was not a school speech case," and I do take that into consideration to believe that to be correct. The student could actually say how he feels, and express It, but only where the setting is to be appropriate, and where others will not be offended of or influenced in a bad way. So in conclusion, I do support the ruling, without a doubt. Frederick had warnings, and suspensions for a reason, and instead of stopping there, and understanding what he did wrong, he obnoxiously made it worse for himself and for his fellow classmates that are now influenced into pro-drug abuse.

CRIMES AND TORTS

T-Film tampering
C-Reefer
T-False advertising
T-ILLEGAL Gambling
C-Threats
C-Destruction of property
C-Assault
C-Drinking on the job
C-Lying under oath
C-Payoff witnesses
C-Bribery
C-Driving without a license
C-Sexual harassment
C-Jaywalking
C-Speeding
C-Reckless driving
C-No seatbelts
C-Assault with a deadly weapon
C-Hit and run
T-Not smogged
C-Sold a non working car
C-Off roading
C-Concealed weapon
C-Car surfing
C-Illegal passing
C-Tailgating
C-Underage driving
C-No insurance
T-Looking at private documents
C-Attempted murder

EOC-Wk3

http://alieds-alie.blogspot.com/
Allison, I believe that what you are saying about the law is very understandable. We both are pretty much on the same page with opinions on the law, and I thought that was actually really cool and interesting. I do believe that the law is very confusing, and tricky, but just as long as we know them we know that we should not be breaking them. I really liked how you said that our government should give us our independence and freedom, but only to a certain extent, because yes, I believe that our government would be taken advantage of, and we would not live in a safe environment. I also agree on the criminal aspect of it. Criminals are being set free, and I believe that criminal acts should be taken more seriously. If they break the law, shouldn’t there be some kind of constant consequence? There is a lot of good but yet bad things about the law. When will we ever understand? -britney

http://t-rayne.blogspot.com/
Taylor, I am so shocked and got taken away when I continuously read your blog. It’s a very interesting choice of topic, to speak about the police, but I do agree with every word you are saying. The police actually feed off a sense of intimidation, knowing that there are cops who are crooked, mean, and use their authority as an advantage, and in that situation of the law, that does not make its’ people feel safe. There have been many encounters that I have been through with the police that should not have been encountered, by them using their authority over a citizen like me. I understand the duties of their job, but I believe that they should take into consideration on what they are actually doing, before they actually take action. The United States could be a land where dreams come true, and where freedom is granted, but there are some crazy things that do go on, when the law takes place! -britney

EOC-Wk 2

What I think about the law?

I think that the law in America, depending on the situation, is fairly equal. When it comes to certain situations such as safety, I believe by laws, America is very aware of its citizens’ safety. Things such as murder, robbery, drug abuse, and basically anything illegal, has consequences that our country offers, and that is when I believe that the law is an advantage. The freedom of speech, religion, and anything personal, is well rounded and respected by citizens as well. Feeling safe in your own environment is a major concern to me, and to the people surrounding me.

But then again, there are parts of our country’s laws that make me feel unsafe and unprotected as well. Unstoppable crime that goes on, unknowingly, physical violence, rape, and war are some examples of what our country cannot control, and some of these topics make me feel unprotected because by law, some of these things cannot be controlled.

But all in all, I believe that the United States of America is a very balanced country. Every country has their pro’s and con’s about specific laws, and such, but I believe that our laws are very understandable and very enforced toward its’ people. Unlike other countries, I’m glad that our country enforces laws, and is not a straight up anarchy where the country is lawless! I would not like to live in an environment, where there are no laws, whatsoever. So, in a nutshell, I believe our laws are fair, compromising, and understanding. Although some of the laws may not make sense, and may seem silly, it is for our own safety, and for our own good. Our country is constantly changing, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, but we always have room for change!

What I think of Lawyers

What I think of Lawyers

What I think about lawyers, is that they just want the money! They may have the passion and the care towards their clients, but I believe that they are all about the money. Lawyers are supposed to do what they’re job is about. It’s all about protecting their clients, and like in the movie, Erin Brockavich, the 40% of the settlement, went to the lawyer, which I believe is non-sense. That makes it seem like the clients owe him a service tax, which should not be appropriate for the clients to pay. From previous experiences with lawyers, all I have ended up with was empty pockets, and a case that I could have solved myself, by speaking with the truth and with the truth being my very own alibi. On a brighter side, I do appreciate the work of a lawyer. I believe they are really intelligent, and put themselves at a great risk. I just don’t appreciate all the fees and charges that the clients have to go through in order for them to work for the client. Most situations, already deal with financial issues to begin with, and coming up with the extra money for a lawyer for their help, just isn’t the most convenient idea for most situations. So all in all, I do appreciate the hard work and dedication of a lawyer, but I just feel that there needs to be some kind of change or plan for the financial part of getting a lawyer. Having a lawyer is supposed to make the client feel helped, and not burdened! Lawyers need to realize that the fees and charges that their client has to pay in order for their service, plays a really big impact on the client’s decision on having that specific person defending their case!