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.