Wolf v. Colorado & Terry v. Ohio Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Wolf v. Colorado & Terry v. Ohio - Case Study Example tate policing policies,sometimes declaring them unconstitutional while other times oddly using them as a definitive source in the scope of Federal protection (Schulhofer,2012). Fact.Thus the doctrine of incorporation is when a court selectively and extensively incorporates the Bill of Rights by its construction of the Due process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,by so declaring that federal procedural safeguards applies to state’s criminal proceedings. Issue.In wolf,the Court applied the Fourth Amendment to the states,as opposed to the federal exclusionary rule in which case barring the government from using illegally seized evidence in its case in chief to prove guilt. The issues in this case involved incorporation of the Fourth Amendment and the lack of the need for a rule of exclusion. Reasoning.The decision of the Court in Wolf and Colorado in 1949 held that the Fourth Amendment applied to the states, and the exclusionary rule did not. By declaring that the Fourth Amendment applied to the states,relied on the incorporation standard articulated in Palko V. Connecticut,a standard likewise cited in the modern Court to decide whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a newly asserted liberty (Schulhofer,2012). Case significance.The Wolf’s Court strongly defined the Fourth Amendment’s fundamentals as protecting a person’s â€Å"privacy against intrusion by police,† a basic right of free society.Unanimously it held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Fourth Amendment. Brief Case Summary.The Petitioner,John W. Terry was stopped by a police officer after the officer observed that the petitioner was ‘ causing’ a store for potential robbery. The petitioner was approached by the officer for questioning and the officer decided to search him first.Acceptably according to the rule of law; a police officer may perform a search for weapons without a warrant,without a probable cause when the

Annotated Bibliography of 5 different online sources

Of 5 different online sources - Annotated Bibliography Example In this article, Cary reflects back in history when the legal drinking age was 18. With regular patrols by the university police, students drank responsibly. Being among the 7 minority countries with a high legal drinking age of 21, task forces aimed at solving the problems of alcohol and drug abuse in colleges would not bear fruit; lowering the drinking age would. The writer concludes with remarks of preference of seeing her child drink in a well-patrolled environment than letting the child drink in secret ending up binge drinking and drug-overdosing among other vices. Supported by evidence from research conducted for over twenty years, Engs in this article argues for the lowering of the legal drinking age to 18. Engs attributes the irresponsible drinking among many of the college students to the perception of drinking as â€Å"adulthood† and â€Å"rebellion against authority.† Similar prohibition laws failed twice in the 1920s and 1850s, hence no need to go back to them again. Citing the examples of Greeks, Italians, Chinese and Jews, the drinking age should be lowered, accompanied by appropriate education, so as to quash the notion of alcohol as poison and promote responsible drinking behaviors across all age groups. In support of lowering the legal drinking age, Griggs reports on the argument by Professor Dwight B. Health of Brown University that the younger the people start drinking, the safer they become, citing cultural models of countries like Italy and France. Through this, parents get to educate their children on alcohol and deter children from irresponsible drinking behaviors. According to Griggs, Professor Heath argues that the â€Å"’forbidden fruit’ syndrome† promotes irresponsible drinking with the drinking age banned to 21. Therefore, the US should opt out of the minority countries with higher drinking age and join the majority who have the drinking age as low as 16 and promote