Recent orders
Terry v. Ohio
Terry v. Ohio
Student’s name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Tittle
Professor’s Name
Date
Terry v Ohio
Terry v. Ohio was a landmark decision made in the Supreme Court of the United States whereby the court ruled that it is not a defiance of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures for public members who the police officers stop for cross-examining and pat-down probe. The dominant themes of this case are searches and seizures, “Terry stop-and-frisk,” the exclusionary rule, the right to privacy included in the Fourth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (as the foundation for the exclusionary rule). The case resulted from the action of a police detective known as Martin McFadden from Cleveland searching for an armed robbery. On the afternoon of October 31, 1963, McFadden showed a pat-down search on three men he presumed to have had plans to defraud a particular store. John Terry and Richard Chilton were the two men out of three who McFadden found to have carried pistols. As a result, they were tried and convicted for being found in possession of concealed weapons. The suspects moved to the court of Appeal, whereby they appealed that the police obtained the evidence used to convict them in an illegal frisking search.
The Supreme Court of the United States argued Terry’s case in 1967. The Chief Justice by that time, known as Earl Warren, wrote the opinion of the majority that McFadden had the authority to conduct a pat-down search for weapons and drugs because the suspects were seen taking part in suspicious behavior that warranted inquiry by the police. According to him, the search did not break the Fourth Amendment, prohibiting unreasonable searches or seizures. The court rejected the argument that pat-down search was a pretty indignity to anyone subjected to it. The Supreme Court’s ruling favored the state of OHIO and the Cleveland police who conducted stop and frisk of a suspect named Terry. It held that the limited search that happened, in this case, was not a constitutional violation of the 4th Amendment right to privacy since the search was done with reasonable suspension that the suspect had taken part in criminal activities. On the other hand, the frisk was done with reasonable cause to believe that the suspect was armed and needed a protective pat-down. The court’s verdict distinguished a “search incident to a lawful arrest” from a “stop-and-frisk,” remarking that a “search incident to a lawful arrest” would need the raised standard of likely cause to conduct an arrest which is a form of seizure.
William O. Douglas being the only dissenter, took his independent stand and argued that the police were being provided with more legal authority to conduct searches by the court than a judge would issue a court order authorizing an investigation or a seizure. Douglas held his stand that police searches should remain under control or restricted by the standard threshold of probable cause. After making its ruling, the court did not create a separating category of police actions that did not meet the probable constitutional cause. The court investigation focused on whether the officer’s action was reasonable and justifiable other than McFadden disregarded Terry’s constitutional protections against unreasonable pat-down search. Stop, and frisk was regarded to detect concealed weapons and drugs on the person than collecting pieces of evidence for a crime committed or about to be executed. (Swartz, 2017).
The participants of this case were Justices Warren, Black, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, Fortas, Marshall. These were the majority. The one who was dissenting was Justice Douglas. The petitioner was John Terry. This case’s decision was a ruling in favor of the appellees grounded on the court’s verdict that the law enforcement agency had sensible reason to be sure that Terry was carrying weapons. For the police to protect the citizens from Terry, he had the right to do a limited search of him for weapons. The Law court decided to state that the law enforcement agency had a right to “stop” him because they had a reasonable doubt of criminal activity and that they could, therefore, make “judicious investigations” on that basis. The court of law settled that such a limited and “reasonable” search was consistent with the Fourth Amendment right to privacy and that any private possessions grabbed during that search could suitably be used as evidence and must not be subject to the exclusionary rule.
This case has shaped criminal justice because the court considers pat-down searches for persons believed to have weapons constitutional since they do not disregard the Fourth Amendment on the ban for unreasonable searches and seizures. This case had great significance, and in the modern days, it provides guidance on cases similar to Terry v Ohio. In the modern days, the court can refer to this case when referring or when stuck in deciding on similar cases. Terry v. Ohio case determined the legality of stop-and-frisk whereby it established that police officers would stop passersby on the street and inspect them for illegal contraband. The Supreme Court established that the practice was lawful under the Fourth Amendment if the police show that he had a “reasonable suspicion” that the suspect was armed and dangerous. In the majority’s opinion, Terry’s conviction declaration shows transparency and integrity in the courts. The police have legitimate authority, which corresponds to criminal justice by ruling that public and questioning members’ stoppage does not defy the Fourth Amendment. Still, it serves as a detection method for concealed weapons, thus a crime prevention practice. (MacFarlane, 2018). There should be a drawn authority that allows reasonable search for munitions by police officers, once the suspect they are dealing with an armed and a dangerous person. And this acts as a crime prevention practice. It is not the aim of the police officer to specific an individual is armed.
In summary, Terry was convicted even after appealing that an illegal search provided the proof used to convict him. The court ruled out that the police can stop an individual from interrogating and pat-down whenever they suspect him/her of being in possession of armed and dangerous weapons. It is constitutional because it does not violate the Fourth Amendment proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures. Thus, the court discovered that stop and frisk is a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment and certain conditions because it acts as a crime prevention practice. The court provided the police with more legal authority in reasonable search on persons suspected to be armed; to detect any concealed weapons. Hence it is a rule to allow valid search for weapons by police officers. Besides, the court ruled that the search of the petitioner’s outer clothing and his cohorts was appropriately limited in time and scope in order for him to determine the presence of weapons and neutralize the danger posed.
References
MacFarlane, K. (2018). Introduction: Terry v. Ohio at 50: The Past, Present, & Future of Stop and Frisk. Idaho Law Review, 54.
Parr, C. K. (2018). The Trimvirate’s Stranglehold on Our Constitutional Rights: The Loophole within Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. The court, Terry v. Ohio, and Utah V. Strieff That Shields Police Misconduct. SUL Rev., 46, 80.
Stoughton, S. W. (2017). Terry v. Ohio and the (un) forgettable frisk. Ohio St. J. Crim. L., 15, 19.
Swartz, J. D. (2017). Terry v. Ohio at 50: What It Created, What It Has Meant, Is It under Attack and Is the Court Opening the Door to Police Misconduct. N. Ill. UL Rev., 38, 44.
Manage Your Health Inc
Manage Your Health Inc
Student’s Name
Institution
Manage Your Health Inc.
Project Management
Project Comparison
Assuming we are planning to construct a facility that will boost the efficiency of our business; the options that we have could be as follows. We have four different projects: A, B, C and D.
Criteria used Project A Project B Project C Project D
Compatible with business objectives 20% 85 95 60 50
Has many internal donors 20% 70 85 40 30
Strong customer influence 10% 55 95 55 30
Favorable level of technology 15% 20 90 45 60
Takes shorter time to implement 10% 25 25 60 80
NPV greater than zero 15% 45 75 60 60
Fairly low risks associated with it 10% 30 60 55 9
Weighted Project Scores 100% 51.25 78.75 52.75 54.5
. Summary
Project management is the discipline of planning, organizing, securing, managing, leading, and controlling resources to achieve specific goals. This essay is mainly concerned about project selection, development of a business case and preparation of a project charter for a potential project.
A variety of project selection criteria can be used to determine the viability of a project. These techniques include traditional and modern methods. In this regard, traditional methods include payback period and return on investment. On the other hand, modern methods include net present value, internal rate of return and profitability index method (David, I, C. & Roland, G., 2006).
Besides, the essay shall discuss different aspects of a project rather than the ones cited above. The research shall majorly focus on project comparison, weighted scoring model, business case and project charter.
In this case, it is imperative for us to choose a case study for us to be able to apply these concepts in real life situations according to the stipulations of the question. We can choose a couple of similar projects like buying business vehicles (Martin, S. 2002). This may sound a little inappropriate but it is a project and it will serve the basic purpose of giving an example. The purpose is application of different selection criteria to determine the best project.
The Weighted Scoring Model for Manage Your Health Inc
Weighted scoring model can be defined as a method of scoring options against a requirements list to determine which option best fits the selection criteria. However, according to Zimmer, weighted scoring refers to a technique for putting a semblance of objectivity into a subjective process. Zimmer explained this technique as using a list of criteria to analyze the appropriateness of a particular project. It involves assigning numerical values to the list of projects. These numerical values can also be called weights (Phillips, J., 2003).
The activity can be best carried out by using Microsoft excel. The ability of a project to meet the required specifications or standards can easily be determined by summing the weighted values. The weights must add up to a hundred. The merits of using the weighted scoring model are many. Different individuals can assign weights to the list of potential projects and therefore average scores are used. The viability of scores is determined by a range of values. A variety of criteria from probabilities assigned to ability of a project to meet business objectives can be used.
Business Case
A business case is a document that is formerly written to explore all the feasible approaches to a problem for the purpose of selecting the option that best suits an organization.
If we were to apply business case in the Manage Your Health Inc scenario, by assuming that the name of the project B above is “From Trash to Capital”. This project could be the best idea compared to constructing new premises to manufacture our products. This kind of a project would use recycling as an alternative to buying new products or constructing premises to manufacture the required products.
In this case, the business case document will look like this:
Manage Your Health Inc
Sponsored by New York city council
Project manager: Joshua M. Kariithi.
The project scope
The project will cover two major geographical locations: the New York City damping sites and recycling will take place within our business headquarters (Jubilee Manufacturers Ltd).This project entails collecting of aluminium tins and other aluminium material from the damping sites for recycling. This will help the business to cut down on its expenses of buying or manufacturing new aluminium products.
The enterprise will employ people and mostly street boys to collect aluminium made wastes from the dumping sites and this will be another way of creating employment for these boys. The tins and cans will be washed through acid and purified before they are melted to create new useful products. In other words, the project will both be important in cleaning the environment and creating jobs.
Objectives of the Manage Your Health Inc Project
To cut down costs of buying or manufacturing new aluminum products.
To create new employment opportunities
To reduce non-biodegradable material from the city’s dumping sites.
To enable the business to manage increases in demand with ease
To set a good example to other companies to help in conserving the environment through recycling other non-biodegradable materials like plastics.
Financial Benefits of Manage Your Health Inc
This project will have great financial benefits. The raw material- aluminum wastes are very cheap to obtain. Selling our finished goods (aluminium products) will earn the business a lot of money. Therefore, the project will enjoy economy of scale by reducing its expenses on raw materials and maximizing its gains. This will make it enjoy a competitive advantage over others.
Other Benefits
Apart from financial and direct non-financial benefits, the project will also benefit the communities by creating new employment for them. Since corporate social responsibility is our priority, we will be able to help to conserve the environment, though indirectly, but for the benefit of the community.
Project Charter
In the service charter for the Manage Your Health Inc, the following will be included:
List of stakeholders,
Role and responsibility matrix,
Management and
Comment section.
List of Stake holders
The stake holders involved in this project will include the following:
Investors
Clients
Government
Trade Unions
Suppliers and
General public
Key Resources
The key resources needed for the project to be complete are as follows:-
Food and other supplies for fulltime workers,
Building material like ballast, cement and sand,
Human resource including supervisors, the technical team and labor force,
Wood and land resource for expansion of business area.
Time Scale
This project is supposed to take three years and two months for it to be completely implemented. Several arrangements have to be made with the New York City Council. This arrangement together with acquisition and leveling of the land is expected to take approximately two months.
Construction of all the required premises is expected to take two and a half years. This includes the factory buildings and all the necessary links to supply of raw material. The key milestone in achieving this goal is the nature of the terrain around the site where the factory is to be located. Leveling the ragged terrain will increase both time and cost estimates (Sebastian, N., 2007).
Estimated Cost
The project will require construction of a recycling factory which will cost an approximate of 42343562 $. Apart from construction of the factory, the project will incur transportation costs of approximately 635664$ per year. Payment for the aliminium collectors will amount to an approximate of 342784$ per financial year. In total, the cost estimate will be 43322010$.
Expected risks
The following are some of the major risks that the project may face:
Lack of proper utilities to support the high level of technical complexity.
Not many people like working at the damping sites and this may result to inadequacy in labor.
People working at the damping sites may contract infections and thus slowing the work down. This may also force us to provide medical support to them and hence increasing the overall cost expected.
Leveling of the terrain may be a risky affair. Workers may suffer lots of injuries if not so cautious.
References
David, I, C. & Roland, G. (2006). Global Project Management Handbook. The evolution
Project management”. McGraw-Hill Professional.Lewis, R. I. (2006) Project Management. McGraw-Hill Professional.
Lock, D. (2007) Project Management (9th Ed.) Gower Publishing, Ltd.
Martin, S. (2002). Project Management Pathways. Association for Project Management. APM
Publishing Limited.
Phillips, J. (2003). Project Management Professional Study Guide. McGraw-Hill Professional.Sebastian, N. (2007) 2nd Ed The Definitive Guide to Project Management. London.
Two issues that arise after reading
Two issues that arise after reading this article is that not all states monitor for nitrates in the drinking water, and this is something that needs to be changed, because people should know what they are drinking. The other issue is that even when state governments do monitor for nitrates, the findings can be inaccurate.
This article has a lot of information about nitrate levels in drinking water and how it is related to income level, race and location. Residents in a majority of counties across the United States are exposed to potentially unsafe levels of nitrate from drinking water.
It is also vital to note that disparities in drinking water exposures to nitrate are quite common in both rural and urban communities and persist even after accounting for differences in income, age, race/ethnicity, education and other factors.
Many of the disparities are attributed to differences in the percentage of African Americans- and Hispanics- among residents within the same county. In addition to race/ethnicity, disparities may also be associated with location. In one study, nitrate concentrations differed by up to threefold between areas of a county with high rates of poverty and those with low rates of poverty.
Futhermore, Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the organisation that monitors and regulates drinking water quality, has deemed the general population to be exposed to nitrate concentrations in excess of 10 ug/L, the level where all health effects from ingestion, inhalation and skin contact would be expected to occur.
In most cases, nitrate levels were found in excess of that level for both African Americans and Hispanics, but not as large a disparity between African American and white residents.
The SDWA limits states to setting a maximum nitrate concentration in drinking water of 10 ug/L.