Recent orders
A legal brief on the U.S Supreme Court ruling in Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S (2011)
Week 6 case brief
Name:
Institution
A legal brief on the U.S Supreme Court ruling in Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S (2011)
Facts
Police followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment complex in Lexington, Kentucky. They knocked loudly on the door of the apartment. Smell of marijuana was eminent from outside the door. They proceeded to announce their entry and knocked again loudly on the door. While outside, they heard noise emanating from the house. They believed that the noises were due to evidence destruction. They announced their intention to gain access to the apartment once more and proceeded to kick open the door and found the suspect and other people. They saw drugs in plain view, plus other evidence after a continued search.
Issue
Police did not have a warrant of entry into the apartment but proceeded to access the premises forcibly, after announcing their intention of entry, though. In court, the respondent denied the intention of destroying evidence. The Circuit Court denied his motion. The Court argued that given the exigent circumstances, warrantless entry into the premises was justified in order to prevent destruction of evidence. He entered a conditional guilty plea and reserved his right to appeal the court’s ruling. The Kentucky Court of Appeal affirmed his plea. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed this, assuming that exigent circumstances rule applied and that the search was warrantless and could have led to the respondent’s intention to destroy evidence. According to the police, there was need to move into the premises quickly to prevent possible destruction of evidence since they had all reasons to believe that that the respondent was engaging in the process of evidence destruction.
Rule
The exigent circumstances rule applied since police failed to create the exigency by violating the Fourth Amendment, which requires that all searches and seizures be done reasonably. A warrantless search may be presumed reasonable, if the exigencies of the situation make the need to enforce the law a priority, under the fourth Amendment. Consider United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 107(1965). An exigency of this nature can for example be prevention of evidence destruction, like was in this case. It is important to note that the exigent circumstances may not apply if the police deliberately create the exigency and proceed forth to carry out an invalid search, contravening the Fourth amendment, and infringing on suspects constitutional right, just to avoid the requirement of an entry warrant. In such scenarios, the exigency circumstances rule does not apply.
Analysis
It is prudent to note that police announced their intention to enter the apartment since smell of marijuana was emanating from the premise. Upon knocking and identification of their intention, noises apparent of evidence destruction were heard. Another knock and announcement for entry was made, with no response. As a result, the police kicked open the door and gained access. Evidence was obtained, and more upon further search, and seized. The police did not have a search warrant though. But according to the fourth amendment, a warrantless search is objective if the need for enforcing the law over rides everything else. The respondent’s rights were infringed because there was no search warrant for his house.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeal’s ruling arguing that although the officers acted in good faith the exigent circumstances rule could not justify their warrantless search. According to the Supreme Court, the police should have reasoned that the moment they announced their entry and announced their presence, the suspect was going to destroy the evidence.
A Law Case Study Analysis Of A Sam And Johns Case Study
A Law Case Study Analysis Of A Sam And John’s Case Study
Case Study
This paper presents a case study analysis of a Sam and John’s case study. Specifically the paper seeks to identify some of the arguments presented in the case study with relation to the issues identified, rules of contract and their application.
Facts
Sam and John decide to open a lawn care service company aimed at assisting their neighbors in cutting grass. They draw up a contract which clearly states that they will charge each client 20$ a week for their services. Subsequently, the two business partners soon get clients from the neighborhood and they purchase a new lawn mower, which they use to provide services to their clients. Just as the business is beginning to pick up, the business faces various setbacks, which cause a legal issue for the business. At the outset one of the clients, the Johnson’s, lose their jobs, and they are unable to continue paying for the lawn mowing services. Based on the specifications of the contract, Sam and John continue servicing these clients at a weekly charge. Secondly, during a break from work at the Smith’s Sam leaves his Lawn Mower on and a neighborhood boy pushes it over, thus destroying Smith’s flowerbed and screen porch. After these incidences, the two business partners call off their business, as they believe that they can no longer work together as a team. Subsequently, John returns the stops making payment for the mower acquired from Mower Inc an states that he will not make any more future payments. Sam wishes to continue with the business but he cannot provide his services to clients without a lawn mower.
Issue 1
As clients to the company, and after the acceptance of the contract, should the Johnsons be bound by the contract made to offer payment of 20$ a week for Lawn Mowing services to Sam and John’s company.
Rule 1
The law of contract states that all parties in the contract need to fulfill the provisions of the contract until the end of the period contracted (Suff 3). Each party involved in the signing of the contract is legally bound to perform as per the provision of the contract. In addition to this the law of contract also allows the termination of contract if it is impossible to fulfill (lawyers.com 1).
Application 1
In this case, Sam and John can argue out that for the collection of payment for services offered to the Johnsons based on the acceptance of the contract by the clients. This argument supports continual payment for services offered by the company to the Johnson’s irrespective of the unfortunate events that befell these clients. Here, Sam and John can argue that the contract supported the issuance of payment from the Johnson’s without the provision of any special circumstances. The Johnsons, on the other hand, can argue for the termination of contract on the basis of impossibility to fulfill the contract as they cannot afford weekly payment for the services offered by Sam and John.
Issue 2
Should the Smiths terminate their contract with Sam and John’s company on the basis of a breach of contract owing to negligence, and should they offer a consideration for the contract.
Rule 2
According to the law of contract, the acceptor of the contract can argue for consideration if the during the course of service, the company’s performance implies possible injury to a person or property (Suff 28). This law supports the attainment of value for both parties involved in the contractual agreement.
Application 2
There are two options for the Smiths in the case issue presented above and that is to sue Sam and John or to terminate the contract between them and the Company. The argument here can be presented as a breach of contract due to company negligence. The Smiths can argue for a rescission of the contract as Sam and John’s company proves a threat to the destruction of property or possible injury owing to the prior incidence regarding the destruction of the flowerbed and the screen porch.
Issue 3
Should Mower Supply Inc be bound by the contract made by its client John, where John had committed to paying for the Lawn Mower, which he withdraws payment after the fall out with Sam.
Rule 3
The rule of contract states that a contract is legally binding and for that reason all parties who signed the contract need to fulfill the provisions of the contract to the period when the contract ends. The contract law also states that individuals under the age 18 are not viable for entrance into contractual agreements (lawyers.com 1). Accordingly, contractual agreements with people under 18 are considered as invalid.
Application 3
Mowers Supply Inc is bound by contract to Sam and John’s company for the provision of the Lawn Mower to the company. Accordingly, Mowers Supply Inc can sue Sam and John for the termination of contract without prior notice. Mowers Supply Inc can demand payment for the remainder of the period contracted for the lease of their lawn mower to Sam and John. As a counter argument, John can plead infancy so as to void the contract with Mower Supply Inc on the basis of consequential liability. This is because John is only 17 years old, and for that reason, is considered a minor in legal matters.
Work Cited
“Reasons to End or Terminate a Contract”. N.d. lawyers.com. 12 December 2011.
<<http://contracts.lawyers.com/contracts/Reasons-to-End-or-Terminate-Contracts.html>>
Suff, Marnah. Essential Contract Law. United Kingdom: Routledge, 1997. Print.
The Role of Media in the public Sphere
The Role of Media in the public Sphere
As the internet continues to grow and expand exponentially, the role that media plays in the society, and specifically within the public sphere is changing. In the Week 4 Lecture, it was established that as populations continue to grow, the media has also become an important tool to the public sphere, on the basis of its ability to provide oversight and retain its role as an agent of information and shaping the opinions of people. Kaiser et al. (2018, p. 440) explain that opinions that seem to matter include only those linked to a majority of people in a population or society. In line with this assertion, the definition of public sphere and opinion relates to a concept of a majority, meaning that the role of the media is to feed the masses in a way that creates opinions, debates, and establishes a majority opinion.
The media controls the public sphere in the modern environment because it occupies virtually every aspect of life today. According to Bainbridge (2015), find that people are now controlled by media as it is a ‘natural’ component of their daily life. The examples given in their study include how mobile phones have become a medium of media, expanding the sphere of spreading information to the masses in an instance and anywhere (Bainbridge, 2015, p.5). The media has become a major influencer of how societies view certain elements of life such as romance, crime, music, entertainment, lavish lifestyles, and so on. Today, media components such as broadcast news are created to address audiences directly. For example, the recent political climate in the United States showed just how media can be used to direct, dictate, and drive political narratives, with big media houses like CNN and FOX News going against each other to support individual candidates, spread news, all in an attempt to control how the masses view different topics. Issues like systemic racism, gun control, and other societal issues can be controlled easily using the media. Therefore, the media is a control agent in the public sphere.
Inadvertently, the media has a myriad of roles that can be summarized into a watchdog or oversight role and a source of news in a vested interest type of way (Week 4 Lecture). The public sphere is a tool that determines how well a society functions through the discussions and freedom of debating on different issues of a society. Bainbridge (2015, p.16) terms it as an index of the health of public discussions and societal democracy. In my interpretation, this role of the media in the public sphere can span from an oversight role that keeps other societal functions in check to a manipulative role of profit making that uses whatever narrative is available to further vested interests. For example, the ownership and use of Facebook and other applications linked to the cite show just how manipulative the media can be, as evidenced in the recent cases of political interference from the media giant. In the end, the media’s role is seen to be quite diverse, taking on different elements in a dual functioning that sometimes demand oversight on other public functions such as governments to sometimes use of their reach to further private and vested interests.
Reference List
Bainbridge, J., Goc, N. and Tynan, L., 2008. Media and journalism: New approaches to theory
and practice. Oxford University Press.
Kaiser, J., Fähnrich, B., Rhomberg, M. and Filzmaier, P., 2017. What happened to the public
sphere? the networked public sphere and public opinion formation. Handbook of Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy, and Cyber-Defense. Springer, Cham.
Week 4 Lecture 54040 Notes