On November 1st,
2012, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case Bailey v. United States, a
case challenging whether Michigan v. Summers allows police to detain someone
they observed leaving a premise that is about to be searched, who have driven
seven-tenths of a mile away.[1]
This challenge comes from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, which held that pursuant to Michigan v. Summers, Bailey’s detention
during the search of his residence was justified.[2]
In Michigan v. Summers, the Supreme Court held that it was lawful to require a
person leaving the front door of their home to re-enter and be detained in
their home until evidence establishing probable cause to arrest them was found.[3]
The question in Bailey is whether Summers is limited to suspicionless
detentions of a person in the immediate vicinity of the premises, or whether
Summers can be used to detain a person who has left the immediate vicinity.
Summers is an exception to the usual requirement that police have to have a
reasonable suspicion that a person was involved in criminal activity, or that
they are armed and dangerous, in order to detain them.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Will Statements Made By Man Who Killed Girlfriend With Curling Iron Be Admissible At Trial?
On Saturday, September 29, 2012, at 2:45 a.m., University police found
Alexandra Kogut dead in her dorm room.
Kogut was eighteen years old and a communications major at The College
at Brockport located in Brockport, New York. A medical examiner determined that she died as a result of
blunt force trauma. Clayton
Whittemore, a twenty-one year old New York college student was accused of
killing Kogut. Whittemore told a
sheriff’s deputy he “just snapped” and beat his girlfriend with his fists and a
curling iron while visiting her at college.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
International Criminal Maritime Law
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Are Political Contributions Statutes a Violation of the First Amendment?
The upcoming presidential elections have brought about many controversies. A major recurring issue is that of political contributions. What are the political contribution laws in various states? How do they apply to individuals? To corporations? One state may have various provisions that differ from another. For example, Mr. Tom DeLay explains the stricter Texas laws prevent political contributions from private corporations to state campaigns. Although the statute did not mention what forms of contributions are barred, the statute has been interpreted to bar almost all campaign donations, including checks.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Felony Disenfranchisement
Election
Day! It’s the day when citizens who want to be engaged in the political process,
get the opportunity to have their say. Unfortunately, for the nearly six million individuals who are
disenfranchised due to felony disenfranchisement laws, Election Day is just a
reminder of this basic civil right they are denied.[1] Felony disenfranchisement occurs
when an individual’s right to vote is taken away (either temporarily or
permanently) because they have been convicted of a felony. Forty-eight states and the District of
Columbia currently have felony disenfranchisement laws in effect. Only Maine and Vermont do not.
Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property Law
In a second
presidential debate on October 16th, 2012, Romney pledged to declare
China as a currency manipulator on his first day in office and also accused
China of producing counterfeit American products and stealing American
intellectual property.[1] The counterfeiting of intellectual property in China is
now the most serious counterfeiting problem in the history of the world.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Can Defendants Confront Their Accusers When They’re Anonymous?
This year, one of the most interesting cases the Supreme Court
had considered whether to hear is Elashi v. United States. This
case has ties to terrorism, inevitably bringing into play a certain level of
deference to the government’s national security interest; however the central
issue is whether the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution allows the government
to present evidence from anonymous witnesses. While Court denied the defendants’ petition for certiorari on
October 29, the case involves interesting questions that could be repeated in
the future.
DOJ Seeks to Stop the “school-to-prison pipeline” in Meridian, Mississippi
In the past, groups like ACLU and NYCLU have filed suits where policies and practices have led to the exacerbation of the “school-to-prison pipeline” problem. [1] In December of 2011, the U.S Department of Justice began investigating these practices in Lauderdale County in Meridian, Mississippi. The Department of Justice revealed its findings on August 10, 2012, and gave the city 60 days to address the violations listed in their report.[2] During the 60 days the city did not fully cooperate with the Department of Justice to resolve the inadequacies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





