United States Supreme Court Essay

Jacobson is the defendant who was given the chance to purchase specific books from an adult bookstore. Later, he describes in testimony how shocked he was to learn that there were specific pictures of juvenile boys. Three months later, the Congress attempted to enact a new anti-child pornography legislation, with the goal of making it unlawful to mail child pornography. (Lippman, 2017). Two important government organizations spent the better part of 2.5 years looking into the defendant's willingness to break or disobey the new law. In the determination of the potentiality of ordering such images of children across the mail interface, the Postal Inspector to fabricate four institutions with the intention of using them as avenues for sending Jacobson materials. Jacobson had the opportunity to address questions on the sort of pornography he did enjoy. Eventually, Jacobson would go ahead to place an order with one of the fake institutions, thus, the platform for acquiring the pornographic magazines of the boys having sex. Upon the delivery, the police did arrest Jacobson with the evidence of the letters and brochures from the government. The judge did instruct the jury concerning entrapment of the defendant, thus, the eventual conviction of Jacobson.

Issue

For the Jacobson case, the objective of the court was to determine whether the government did prove the essence of the defendant-experiencing predisposition to the crime based on the stated facts.

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court had the opportunity to overturn the conviction of the defendant for the acquisition of the child pornography across the Internet platform concerning mail delivery. Evidently, the court did rule that the postal inspectors did engage in the implantation of the desire to execute the deed through actions in the documented entreaties.

Reasoning

In the process of offering the final word, the course took to itself to cite the availability of the defense of entrapment as a matter of law. The court did base the ruling on the actions, which transpired in the 26-month-long sting operation involving or integrating numerous letters and mailings with the intention of persuading the defendant (Lippman, 2017). Before these aspects, the defendant did not engage in the unlawful procurement of the child pornography. Based on these attributes, the defendant did not come out as a criminal liable entity.

Case Significance

The court finds the case to be a landmark legal aspect concerning the revitalization of the entrapment defense. As a result, it has been able to have substantial implications while offering the platform for the juries to acquit in agreement with the overaggressive tactics of the police and judges to provide a quality decision on the criminal liability (Lippman, 2017). Critically, it comes out as the first platform for the legal entity to engage in the assessment of the entrapment situation out of the controlled-substance enforcement sphere.

Comments about the Case

I believe that the court’s decision was a rare triumph for Jacobson in the midst of the traditional judiciary system, which had the tendency to side with the prosecutors. The judges had the opportunity to make a quality ruling, thus, the platform for the provision of the guideline on the operations of the legal and law enforcement agencies in attempts to make the society safer.

Miller v. Alabama (2012)

Case Number: 567 U.S.

Court: United States Supreme Court

Facts

When Evan Miller was 14-years-old, he, as well as his friend, 16-year-old friend, Colby Smith did engage in the killing of Miller's neighbor, Cannon Cole. According to the available information, there was an altercation at Cannon's house, which potentially did emanate from the act of the boys indulging in a mission to steal money from Cannon's wallet. In the course of the dispute, Cannon did grab Miller by the threat of Smith hitting him with the baseball bat in the head. The dispute highlights that Miller went on with the action of hitting Cannon with the bat. The two did leave Cannon alive on the floor of his trailer, but returned later before setting several fires while leaving Cannon to die (Lippman, 2017).

Upon questioning by the police, Miller and Smith did confess to murder. Categorically, Smith did demonstrate the willingness to give an articulate testimony against Miller as a trade-off for the looming life sentence, besides the potential parole. In the context of the juvenile court system, the culprits have the platform to experience the uttermost chastisement coming in form of detention up to the time that he reaches 21 years old. Miller did undergo trial as an adult before conviction for aggravation of murder, allowing sentences in Alabama such as death or life without parole.

Issue

The primary focus was on whether the penalty of life, with the absence parole, imposed on the guilty 14-year-old of as a result of murder is not in line with the Eighth Amendment; the amendment focuses on the prohibition concerning unusual, as well as cruel punishments.

Court’s Decision

In addressing the dispute, the court decided on a 5-4 ruling or alternative of the lack of constitutionality of the state to engage in imposing mandatory life without parole sentences for the juveniles before reaching the age of 18-years-old (Lippman, 2017). Justice Kagan had the platform to document for the majority before the emergence of Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Beyer, and Ginsburg.

Reasoning

The final decision did relate to the perception of children to lack maturity, thus, increased vulnerability or susceptibility to the outside influences concerning the peer pressures. Subsequently, the juveniles appear to be different from the adults thereby triggering the inability of the type of crime to transform or change the given fundamental difference. Notably, the court did highlight lack of responsibility of the state legislature's criminal law to offer a guarantee to the eventual freedom for the juvenile homicide offenders (Lippman, 2017). Nonetheless, it is obligatory for such institutional aspects to provide a number of chances concerning the release, as permitted by the judge, might provide at his or her discretion. The approach enables the legal practices to integrate various factors, which might be complex in the scenario of the juveniles.

Case Significance

The scenario infers a critical development in the maintenance of the treatment of the juveniles as immature entities, especially in the delivery of the judicial verdicts and crimes. The case provides the opportunity for the juries to integrate complex issues or factors, which might influence the decision-making of the juveniles within the society.

Comments about the Case

Based on the findings of the case, I believe that the ruling was appropriate, thus, the need for the creation of the platform for the protection of the rights of the juveniles concerning the life sentences without parole.

United States v. Salerno (1987)

Case Number: 481 U.S. 739

Court: The United States Supreme Court

Facts

In 1984, the Congress did pass the Bail Reform Act, which did allow the federal court to have the opportunity to detain an arrestee before trial. All the government had to do was to provide evidence through clear and convincing practices on the jeopardizing of the safety of others upon the release of the individual in question. Notably, the Act did require the essence of adversary hearing in which the arrestee has the right to have an attorney present while engaging in testifying or presenting witnesses, as well as proffer evidence (Lippman, 2017). There were also opportunities for cross-mining the government's witnesses. It is the duty of the legislative practitioner in the midst of the various factors of consideration to execute the aspects mentioned above of the Act.

In the analysis, the defendant, Salerno was an arrestee following the act of conviction on a 29-count indictment. During the arraignment of the defendant, the federal government did focus on pursuit the detainment of Salerno based on the 1984 Act. In the course of the hearing process, the government had the opportunity to depict Salerno as the ‘boss’ of a powerful crime institution or family. Categorically, the district court to grant the federal government the detention motion with the objective of demonstrating that the government had the opportunity to meet its burden (Lippman, 2017). Upon appeal, the court of appeals did hold on the unconstitutionality of the Act as a violation of the due process of the constitution of the United States.

Issue

In the course of addressing the situation, the focus was on the determination whether the pre-trial detention of the potentially dangerous criminal comes out as punitive, thus, unconstitutional deprivation of liberty in the lack of due process of the law.

Court’s Decision

The ruling, as documented by Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Supreme Court did highlight the regulatory act of detention. Based on the sufficient compelling interests of the federal government, it is justifiable for the judicial practitioners and officials to execute the laws concerning the detention of the dangerous persons. The execution relates to the threat on the society emanating from the release of the highly dangerous criminal.

Reasoning

The decicion of the court did relate to the need for the legal practitioners and the government to pursue the collective safety of the society. Based on this, it is appropriate for the legal and executive branches of the government to function effectively and efficiently with the intention of using the concept of detention as regulatory. In this context, the threat posed to the community by the possible release of the criminal should guide the judicial practitioners and officials in the course of making it appropriate for the overall safety of the society.

Case Significance

The procedure did provide the platform for the government and legal practitioners to tackle crime effectively and efficiently. The platform provided is through effective and efficient execution of the legal duties in the midst of the due process of the law (Lippman, 2017). The level or extent of the threat to the society should be a critical guiding factor in the determination of the detention or release of the criminal in question concerning the governmental interests.

Comments about the Case

I believe that the judges had the opportunity and the platform to make an ideal decision while considering the overall or collective safety of the society. It is appropriate to evaluate the extent of the threat posed by the potential release of a dangerous criminal to the community in executing the essence of administrative detention.

North Carolina v. Alford (1970)

Case Number: 400 U.S. 25

Court: United States Supreme Court

Facts

Alford comes out as the defendant. The defendant had the opportunity to plead guilty to the second-degree murder with the intention of avoiding or evading the trial on first-degree murder, which is a critical or capital offense. The defendant sought to use counsel as the representative in the midst of the strong claim by the state against the approach to pleading guilty. According to Alford's testimony, he focused on pleading guilty with the intention of overcoming the claim by the state in spite of maintaining the perception of not engaging in the committing the murder (Lippman, 2017). It is essential to note that the trial judge had the chance to accept Alford's pleas before the delivery of the 30-year maximum sentence. Notably, Alford sought to pursue post-conviction relief.

Issue

The issue did relate to the determination of the existence of the constitutional barriers or limitations in place preventing judicial or legal practitioners from acceptance of the guilty plea from the defendant seeking to plead quality in the midst of protesting his or her innocence.

Court’s Decision

In the course of making a ruling, the Supreme Court had the platform and the opportunity to ascertain lack of constitutional barriers preventing the judicial practitioners or officials from accepting a guilty plea from the defendant. Based on those above, the defendant might seek to pursue the acceptance of the guilt while engaging in the consistent protesting of his or her innocence.

Reasoning

According to the final decision, the focus was on the elimination of the perception of the trial judge committing constitutional error in the acceptance of the guilty plea by the defendant in the dispute at the floor of the court. In the ruling decision, the judges did highlight the fact that the guilty plea is vital in the representation of the intelligent and voluntary choice among the existing alternatives to the defendant, particularly under the representation by the counsel. It is unconstitutional to compel such actions within the conceptualization of the 5th Amendment (Lippman, 2017). The objective of the guilty plea is to facilitate avoidance of the positive of the death penalty or capital punishment within the society. Similarly, the 14th Amendment, as well as the Bill of Rights fails to prohibit the states from the acceptance of the pleaser to lesser included criminal issues or offenses.

Case Significance

The whole procedure proves to be a landmark decision on handling the acceptance of the guilty plea by the defendant seeking to enforce protests on their innocence.

Comments about the Case

I believe that the Supreme Court did set a valuable precedent with the intention of creating the opportunity for the target audiences or society members to avoid the death penalty or capital penalty while seeking to withdraw their names from the alleged crimes at the floor of the house.

Rochin v. California

Supreme Court of the United States of America

Reference: 342 U.S. 165

Facts

Three law enforcement officers, the police, got to the house of the Appellant, Rochin on suspicion that he was using drugs. Two capsules were visible on top of the table. Upon inquiry by the police, the appellant swallowed the pills with the police officers being unsuccessful in removing the capsules from the suspect's body. Later, the police took Rochin to a hospital where his stomach was pumped and vomiting, intensively, induced without Rochin's consent. According to the evidence by the police, the two capsules contained morphine. Rochin has appealed a ruling by the court of appeal concerning lack of adherence to the due process clause. According to appellant, the police compelled him to vomit the capsules that he swallowed, against the provisions of the due process clause.

Issue

The use of force is highly regulated under the law, and one has the right to be protected by the law through the criminal proceedings. According to the Due Process Clause provisions, the police have the right to, forcefully, extract evidence inside a person's body. Such contravenes the rights of the individual and could be viewed as a miscarriage of justice to the accused. The rule of law has to be followed and there is need to maintain the fact that an accused has rights that have to be held in the course of extracting evidence from him or her.

Court Decision

The court reached a conclusion that the police were not authorized to forcefully coerce the accused into contributing to the evidence needed to strengthen the claim. According to the notes of the judgment, there is need to maintain that the Due Process clause, as affirmed under the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States of America, any form of coerced confessions is prohibited, and one can only make a confession in line with his or her willingness. Approval of coerced confession would be tantamount to approving to police brutality, and such may lead to the erosion of the rights of an individual against the rule of law. The same standards that have been set for obtaining verbal evidence need to be utilized in the extraction of physical evidence required to build a given case.

Reasoning

The use of the nebulous standards in the establishment of legal judgment could go against the bill of rights that need to be utilized by the society. Notably, there is need to affirm that the nebulous standards absolve the Supreme Court from its right to make a judgment. Additionally, any change in the vague rules could further lead to the erosion of the civil liberties that need to be enjoyed by the citizens.

Case Significance

The case is significant in determining the set of principles that need to guide the law enforcement officers in the gathering of evidence. Additionally, the court offers an interpretation of how the fourteenth amendment is in line with civil liberties that need to be enjoyed by all the citizens. Therefore, it can be used a reference to the legal blunders that are often done by the police in the collection of evidence while at the same eroding the civil rights of the citizens.

Comments about the Case

There is need to determine the point at which the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution agree since the former is applied in the invalidation of Rochin's use of evidence while the latter is utilized by the Supreme Court to quash laws that they are not in agreement within the law formulation process.

Kyllo V. United States

Rehnquist Court

Reference number 99-8508

Facts

The police were in a suspicion that Kyllo was growing Marijuana within his home against the laws of the land and the state. Consequently, the police used a thermal imaging device in the collection of evidence that was to be used in examining is the suspected plant with Kyllo's home was indeed marijuana. The information gathered through the thermal imaging device was then used in seeking the arrest warrant for the suspect.

Issue

The main problem that pertains to the scenario is on the validity of use of a device that has been derived from the government authorities in developing evidence e. Notably, it is important to affirm that Kyllo's home is a protected area that requires consent before the thermal imaging decide is used in the examination of evidence on the growth of Marijuana within the compound. Additionally, the use of the thermal imaging device is viewed as a subjugation of the rights of the persons living within the protected area. The other issue is the validity of the evidence collected through thermal imaging without physical intrusion taking into consideration the Fourth Amendment of the constitution statutes relating to a rant of searches.

Court decision

The court upheld that the thermal imaging did not constitute to home intrusion and could not be used to constitute an infringement of the privacy of the homeowner. According to the ruling delivered by the judge, the thermal imaging object could not penetrate the walls and does not enable the investigators to record any conversations of persons residing within the compound that is under investigation. Therefore, the thermal imaging equipment is in line with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. The Fourth Amendment often suffices in the situation of the actual physical intrusion within the compound of a constitutionally protected area or region.

Reasoning

According to the legal provisions of the Fourth Amendment, the government has no exclusive right to make any unreasonable searches within one’s compound. Therefore, properties and persons are protected against any illegal search that is held or facilitated by the government. Notably, there is need to recognize that a home is a private place that requires privacy of the persons to be enhanced. Therefore, any form of search that is done by the government needs to be guided by a valid search warrant that offered by the courts.

Case Significance

The case offers limits on the role and power that the government may exercise in the collection of evidence. Notably, the government is an institution that needs to uphold the constitutional provisions in the country and further ensure that they seek search warrants. As such, the use of the thermal imaging products cannot be used in the searches in a situation of no revealing personal conversations and details of individuals within any given building.

Comments about the Case

There is need to interpret the statutes of the Fourth Amendment based on the impacts that they have on the protection of the rights of all persons. The government needs to ensure that any investigative process that is instituted by them adheres to the codes of Fourth Amendment.

Arizona v. Gant

Arizona Supreme Court

Referenced as docket 07-542

Facts

Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license, an issue that is not in line with the laws of the country that requires all drivers to have a valid driving license. Gant left his vehicle voluntarily upon being notified that he was being arrested for breaking the law. However, the police officers further went ahead to search his car where they were able to locate cocaine and a handgun. During the trial in the district court, Gant argued that judgment needs to be suppressed since the search in his car took place without any search warrant, an issue that the district court rejected with the affirmation that the search was in line with his conduct. However, the court of appeal guaranteed that the search was not valid and was, thus, unconstitutional since there was no warrant guaranteeing the search.

Issue

The main problem that relates to the case is the authority of the police officers in offering a search to one’s property upon an arrest. The issue can be presented in the form of a question to mean, do the police have the mandate and right to conduct a search without a search warrant when they have validly arrested an individual?

Court decision

The court decided that the police have the right to conduct a search in one’s compartment that is property or car when the arrested person could interfere with the scene of the crime. Additionally, the police may proceed to conduct a search within one's property when the search is about the offense that one has been arrested. According to the ruling by the judges, Gant was solely arrested for driving with a suspended license. There was no valid reason to search the car to collect evidence of him driving without a valid license if he indeed produced his driving license. As such, the police needed to go to court and get a search warrant that was to enable them to search the suspect's car. Additionally, a narrow exception to warrant any given search is only approved when the narrow exemption is in tandem with the cause of the search.

Reasoning

The court upheld that the narrow exception was not applicable to the context of the case. According to the statutes on searches that have been passed by the Congress, any form of search that is conducted by the law enforcement officials must be valid and be accompanied by the approved search permits. The virtue of one being a suspect does not absolve of the rights to privacy and the rights to grant him or her constitutional rights that would guarantee the protection of right not to be searched without a search warrant.

Case Significance

The Arizona Supreme Court examined the case taking particular consideration of the rights of accused persons to be searched based on the terms and circumstance under which he or she has been arrested. As such, an arrest does not wish away the rights of an individual to go be guaranteed rights against potential cases that he or she has not been accused of.

Comments about the Case

The ruling by the Arizona Supreme court is essential in enabling one to have an understanding of the rights that all citizens have to enjoy regarding illegal searches that are often done by the law enforcement officers. According to the judgments that have been passed by the judges, one has the right to object to any search that is not supported by a valid search warrant.

Plumhoff v. Rickard

Roberts Court

Reference number 12-1117

Facts

West Memphis police officer participated in the murder of Rickard and Kelly Allen on 18th July 2004 on the full glare of the police cameras. The situation resulted from the refusal by Donald Rickard to stop the car after the police realized an inoperable headlight that further led to the pursuit of Rickard by the police. The pursuit was from West Memphis Arkansas to Memphis, Tennessee. The shooting of the two resulted from their decision not to obey the orders to stop, thus, compelling the officers to fire at them. The families of Allen and Rickard then sued the police on account of the murder of their families for the use of excessive force in the pursuit of the car.

Issue

The major problem that relates to the ruling is the affirmation of qualified immunity of the officers with particular regard to the use of excessive force. Reference is being made to the Sixth Circuit and the Fourth Amendment relating to the case of the murder of the duo. Therefore, there is need for the court to determine if the officers used excessive force or not in their quest of the occupants of the car that they unsuccessfully tried to stop.

Court decision

First, the court held that the court of appeal had the jurisdiction to hear the case since a qualified immunity claim is an exemption of the final decision of the district courts. Second, the conduct of the officers to shoot the occupants of the car upon escape, against the orders of the police does not go against the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. Notably, it is important to stop a dangerously driven car that may cause harm to the bystanders and the public. Additionally, in the case where the conduct of the police officers is not in line with the provisions of the Fourth Amendment, the officers are protected under qualified immunity, thus, granting reasons for summary judgment.

Reasoning

With the given reference to the Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, a court determines if the law enforcement officers used excessive force through examination of the officer at the scene. The police have the approval to use deadly force when the suspect does not obey orders and poses harm to the members of the public. The 100 miles chase and the further decision by the occupants of the car not to surrender upon being cornered is a basis for using excessive force.

Case significance

With reference to the Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165 Pp. 11–12, the safety of the public is crucial as is the case of the Fourth Amendment rights of an individual with the police granted the use of excessive force when the public is in danger.

Comments about the Case

While the case offers an exemption to the use of excessive force, there is no definition of the maximum number of shots that the police could direct to a suspect to warrant excessive force when the suspect has objected surrendering to the police.

Reference

Lippman, M. R. (2017), “Criminal procedure,” Third Edition; Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications