Legal Case Analysis
Forensic Evidence 1: Safford Unified School Dist. No. 1 v. Redding-Supreme Court (2009)
Case facts: This is a case of violating the 4th amendment, involving Safford Unified School V. Redding. It all happened at Arizona middle school; the school official searched an eighth-grade female to go ahead and stripped the school official by a tip from another student that she had ibuprofen on her. Ibuprofen is a violation of the school policy; that made the school official to strip the girl. The incident did not go well with the student’s parents as they filled a suit against the school and officials that contact the search. In her case, the girl stated that the official violated her 4thamendment right during the search. The court granted the girl the motion. The case took place in Arizona in 2009.
The Court Ruling
The ruling it was found the strip search did violate her 4th amendment right; this the co; this led in favor of the school official and dismissed the case. During the appeal in the U.S, the court entirely headed the case and ruled that the school officials did violate the 4th amendment right because of the strip search; the official did not justify the strip according to legal reasoning.
Legal reasoning
The school official did not justify stripping of the victim, “the search should aim to the objective and not overlooking in terms of gender and age of the student and the nature of the violation” (Oyez). The official school lacked enough evidence to conduct the strip search. Justice Stevens wrote that he agreed the strip search was unconstitutional (Oyez).
Case No.2 Riley v. California, slip opinion (2014)
Facts about the Case
The case of Riley v. California, where the individual is connected to the criminal shooting, the gang and Riley started shooting on a rival gang member passing by on August 2, 2009; .after that incident, the group drove away in Riley’s car. On August 22, 2009, the police pulled Riley at a police checkpoint, but he is a different vehicle with an expired license. Police policy in California impounds you in case of an expired driving license. Before that, the police must contact a full search of the car; during this process, the police found two guns in Riley’s car and arrested him for having a firearm. The law also found Riley’s cell phone in his pocket. They took it and had an investigator analyses the pictures and video in it. They connected Riley to the gang and charged him with two different crimes. Before hearing the case, Riley’s filled requested to challenge the affidavit relating him to his criminal team on his phone.
Determination
Chief justice Robert reached the unanimous decision that the police require a warrant to search a cell phone. Court also said even though technology allows such information to be on the phone, it does not make the data less protected. And finally, for the police to information from cell phones, they should get a warrant. The court dismissed Riley’s motion as the cell phone’s evidence violated his 4th amendment right denied due to the gang testimonial. Riley was found guilty and charged for attempted murder, assault with firearms, and shooting at an occupied vehicle. He was convicted with all the three charges and sentenced him 15 years of life in prison.
Legal Reasoning
There were many reasons for the evidence that was held up in court. The warrantless search was allowed to preserve evidence and protect the safety of the officer. Digital data cannot be used as a weapon to harm the officer, and the officer can still keep the evidence as they wait for a letter of the warrant by merely switching the phone (Oyez).
Testimonial Evidence 1 Case Payne v.Tennessee (1999)
In this case, a criminal uses witness to testify on his excellent behavior to prevent the death penalty. The ruling was made in Tennessee courtroom on April 24, 1999. Payne was accused of murder, killing Charisse and her daughter. Payne brought forward had four witnesses to testify about his excellent conduct, trying to escape the life sentence charge, the Prosecution allowed the mother to Charisse to testify on how the death of her daughter had affected her grandson.
Determination
Payne was charged for murder and given a death penalty. Payne argued that the prosecution should not use the victim’s affidavit being affected by her mother’s death by family members when appealing for his sentence (Oyez). The court ruled against Payne, and he was sentenced to death.
Legal Reasoning
Just for the court to allow Payne to have a witness to testify on his behave, the court was applying legal reasoning. Payne was given a death penalty with the prosecutor arguing on how her daughter’s death had affected her grandson.
Testimonial Evidence 2:
The facts; of the case Kumbo Tire Co v. Carmichael: The point is how federal clause Evidence overruled an affidavit. Patrick Carmichael was driving when the accident occurred. He was driving a minivan when it overturned due to a tire that blew up. One person died, and several people were injured in the accident. Carmichael tried to sue the Kumbo Tire Company and affiliate with the accusation that the tire had some defectives. Dennis Carlson, an expert in tire failure, testified on behave of Carmichael’s family. Carlson’s evidence was based on methodology, and kumbo Tire moved to exclude the affidavit, saying that it did not meet the federal Rule of Evidence 702.
The clause says that “if scientific technology will assist the trier then the witness will only testify in a form of opinion” (Oyez). Carlson testimony was excluded by the federal District Court and entered summary judgment for kumbo.
Determination
The court Carlson’s evidence because it was methodology facts. During the appeal, the federal judge decision was limited under the federal court evidence to scientific opinion. It was not Carson’s evidence of which the court named experienced based.
Legal Reasoning
The court used legal reasoning to exclude Carlson’s testimony. The other legal reason was the federal Rule Evidence. The court also ruled that the District Court ruling that Carlson’s methodology was unreliable (Oyez).
Legal Case Analysis
Forensic Evidence 1: Safford Unified School Dist. No. 1 v. Redding-Supreme Court (2009)
Case facts: This is a case of violating the 4th amendment, involving Safford Unified School V. Redding. It all happened at Arizona middle school; the school official searched an eighth-grade female to go ahead and stripped the school official by a tip from another student that she had ibuprofen on her. Ibuprofen is a violation of the school policy; that made the school official to strip the girl. The incident did not go well with the student’s parents as they filled a suit against the school and officials that contact the search. In her case, the girl stated that the official violated her 4thamendment right during the search. The court granted the girl the motion. The case took place in Arizona in 2009.
The Court Ruling
The ruling it was found the strip search did violate her 4th amendment right; this the co; this led in favor of the school official and dismissed the case. During the appeal in the U.S, the court entirely headed the case and ruled that the school officials did violate the 4th amendment right because of the strip search; the official did not justify the strip according to legal reasoning.
Legal reasoning
The school official did not justify stripping of the victim, “the search should aim to the objective and not overlooking in terms of gender and age of the student and the nature of the violation” (Oyez). The official school lacked enough evidence to conduct the strip search. Justice Stevens wrote that he agreed the strip search was unconstitutional (Oyez).
Case No.2 Riley v. California, slip opinion (2014)
Facts about the Case
The case of Riley v. California, where the individual is connected to the criminal shooting, the gang and Riley started shooting on a rival gang member passing by on August 2, 2009; .after that incident, the group drove away in Riley’s car. On August 22, 2009, the police pulled Riley at a police checkpoint, but he is a different vehicle with an expired license. Police policy in California impounds you in case of an expired driving license. Before that, the police must contact a full search of the car; during this process, the police found two guns in Riley’s car and arrested him for having a firearm. The law also found Riley’s cell phone in his pocket. They took it and had an investigator analyses the pictures and video in it. They connected Riley to the gang and charged him with two different crimes. Before hearing the case, Riley’s filled requested to challenge the affidavit relating him to his criminal team on his phone.
Determination
Chief justice Robert reached the unanimous decision that the police require a warrant to search a cell phone. Court also said even though technology allows such information to be on the phone, it does not make the data less protected. And finally, for the police to information from cell phones, they should get a warrant. The court dismissed Riley’s motion as the cell phone’s evidence violated his 4th amendment right denied due to the gang testimonial. Riley was found guilty and charged for attempted murder, assault with firearms, and shooting at an occupied vehicle. He was convicted with all the three charges and sentenced him 15 years of life in prison.
Legal Reasoning
There were many reasons for the evidence that was held up in court. The warrantless search was allowed to preserve evidence and protect the safety of the officer. Digital data cannot be used as a weapon to harm the officer, and the officer can still keep the evidence as they wait for a letter of the warrant by merely switching the phone (Oyez).
Testimonial Evidence 1 Case Payne v.Tennessee (1999)
In this case, a criminal uses witness to testify on his excellent behavior to prevent the death penalty. The ruling was made in Tennessee courtroom on April 24, 1999. Payne was accused of murder, killing Charisse and her daughter. Payne brought forward had four witnesses to testify about his excellent conduct, trying to escape the life sentence charge, the Prosecution allowed the mother to Charisse to testify on how the death of her daughter had affected her grandson.
Determination
Payne was charged for murder and given a death penalty. Payne argued that the prosecution should not use the victim’s affidavit being affected by her mother’s death by family members when appealing for his sentence (Oyez). The court ruled against Payne, and he was sentenced to death.
Legal Reasoning
Just for the court to allow Payne to have a witness to testify on his behave, the court was applying legal reasoning. Payne was given a death penalty with the prosecutor arguing on how her daughter’s death had affected her grandson.
Testimonial Evidence 2:
The facts; of the case Kumbo Tire Co v. Carmichael: The point is how federal clause Evidence overruled an affidavit. Patrick Carmichael was driving when the accident occurred. He was driving a minivan when it overturned due to a tire that blew up. One person died, and several people were injured in the accident. Carmichael tried to sue the Kumbo Tire Company and affiliate with the accusation that the tire had some defectives. Dennis Carlson, an expert in tire failure, testified on behave of Carmichael’s family. Carlson’s evidence was based on methodology, and kumbo Tire moved to exclude the affidavit, saying that it did not meet the federal Rule of Evidence 702.
The clause says that “if scientific technology will assist the trier then the witness will only testify in a form of opinion” (Oyez). Carlson testimony was excluded by the federal District Court and entered summary judgment for kumbo.
Determination
The court Carlson’s evidence because it was methodology facts. During the appeal, the federal judge decision was limited under the federal court evidence to scientific opinion. It was not Carson’s evidence of which the court named experienced based.
Legal Reasoning
The court used legal reasoning to exclude Carlson’s testimony. The other legal reason was the federal Rule Evidence. The court also ruled that the District Court ruling that Carlson’s methodology was unreliable (Oyez).