Florence vs. Board of Chosen Freeholders of county of Burlington et al. Essay

Florence vs. Board of Chosen Freeholders of county of Burlington et al.Introduction 1. The fount is subtitled writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit. What is the meaning of writ of certiorari? Certiorari is an order by a higher address to review the assistant court of justiceroom. In this the higher court request the lower court to experience the grounds forward so that it seat review how the lower court has g atomic number 53 about with it. 2. Which justice wrote the majority opinion for the court? Which justices linked him/her? Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. head teacher Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Breyer afterward on joined him, 3. In five sentences or fewer and in your own words, what are the underlying facts of this case? The case involves a complainant who was found guilty of a misdemeanor and given a book for a duty offense. However, he felt that the police had violated his matures and went to the authoritative Court to seek a certiorari for the court to look at the decision of the lower courts but the court of appeal affirmed the decision by the lower courts. 4. What was the main(prenominal) legal issue in this case? In other words, which constitutional provisions were allegedly violated? The main legal issues was whether the police had actually violated a fundamental repair in the constitution. The right to concealment is the constitutional question in this case.Who did wooer sue? (Who was defendant in original case?) 5. The petitioner was the jury of chosen freeholders of the county of Burlington. What was the decision of the District court? 6.The district court held that on that stop was a violation of the fourth amendment. 7.And how about the Appeals court? What was their decision? The court of appeal upheld the decision of the district court. 8. The U.S. Supreme Court noted in the majority decision that Appeals courts around the country switch b een split on this issue. Did this influence the Supreme Courts decision to hear this case? Why? This did not affect this case as the court employ their discretion to see the events that had been currently been brought before the court and keep excursion the ideas that had ever applied in other cases. The court was also evoke to create a precedence as such(prenominal). 9. The majority cites the case occlude v Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576. For what purpose did they bring up this case? The court use this decision to try and pardon the reason for upholding the third circuit as such. This tries to explain the reasons as to why the court upheld it and also place feature which the issue of contraband banning could be used. The court used this to manoeuvre that if the arrested party was a person of higher degree crime indeed he could be denied the rights. 10. The court also raises Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517. What point were they trying to get under ones skin here? The us e of this case was also to try and explain why the court had made this decision as such and also show instances that such a decision would not amount to infringement of rights. 11. And Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 was discussed in depth. In your own words, what were the facts of that case? In the case the petitioner had fetch to court to seek whether undoubted security imperatives that are knotty in put behind bars supervision override an assertion that some of the detainees must evade from the encroaching(a) search. 12.Why did the majority cite the Atwater case? The majority cited this case to act as a guideline as to whether there can be restriction to enjoyment some rights as such. 1. The majority lists the many types of contraband that can be smuggled into jails. List at least six examples. mobile Phones, Drugs, Weapons, Glass materials, Illegal clothing, Messages to other prisoners 2. Oklahoma City bomber herds grass McVeigh was discussed. Why? This situation was discussed to show the situations that the right can be limited. The right is explained that it can be limited in cases that the arrested party would pose a threat to the security of the public. 3. Chief Justice Roberts issued a concurring opinion. What is a concurring opinion? A concurring opinion is an opinion that goes in line with the decision and majority opinion of the courts. 4. In your own words, what is Chief Justice Roberts point? Chief justice Roberts tries to explain the impossibility of the court giving the exclusion of a rule delivered by the equal court as such.J 5. ustice Alito also filed a concurring opinion. What was his point? His opinion was that the court will not be inclose at all times to ensure that the offenders are not subjected to these conditions. He tries to explain the fact that a judicial officer cannot always be present in the police stations to ensure that the right is not infringed at all. 6. Who wrote the r emonstrationing opinion? And who joined him/her? The dissenting opinion was written by Justice by Breyer 7. The dissent said that a certain hackneyed should apply to searches. What standard were they recommending? The standard that he sets is the determination of the weight of cases so as to be able to know how serious a function could be before opting to go ahead to conduct searches on a detainee. 8. The dissent, too, cites Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 315. Why? The opinion cites this case to cite situations I which the right to privacy could be limited and not in minor offences such as the one brought before the court of justice. 9. On page 5 of the dissent the justices refer to amicus briefs. What is an Amicus brief? As a matter of fact, an amicus brief evidently means an intervening brief to a case presented before the court of law. 10. What examples did the dissent include to show those strip-searched for minor offenses? The dissent uses the example of traffic offenders being subjected to the same manner just as the people involved in major state offences. 11. If you were on the court, would you side with the majority, the dissent, or one of the concurring opinions? Why? Most importantly, I would side with the decent since they have managed to show conclusively how the right can be infringed as such and also tries to protect the rights of minor offenders as well.ReferencesFlorence vs. Board of Chosen Freeholders of county of Burlington et al. (2012)566. U.S beginning document