Responses to Case Studies Questions

Responses to Case Studies Questions

Case Found at 131 S.Ct. 2267

Below are responses to the case found at 131 S.Ct. 2267

1. Sykes v. the United States, 564 U.S. 1; 131 S. Ct. 2267; 180 L. Ed. 2d 60
2. The United States Supreme Court managed to reach a unanimous decision.
3. The three previous felonies include intentionally using a car to flee from law enforcement officers, thus committing a state-law crime, operating a vehicle in a manner that creates a substantial risk for bodily injury to another person, and being in legal possession of a firearm.
4. The federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) holds that for a felony who had three previous convictions for a violent offense, a sentence of a minimum of fifteen years should be extended to such a person while for a felony with less than three convictions, he or she should receive a lesser sentence that does not go beyond thirteen years (Reavis, 2012).
5. The court held that, as proscribed by Indiana law, it was a violent felony for Sykes to have used a vehicle knowingly and intentionally to flee from a law enforcement officer even after being ordered to stop.
6. The court reasoned that any incident of a vehicle flight requires the police officers to chase the one on the run, and this, in most cases, results in more injuries on average when compared to crimes such as burglary.
7. The basis for Scalia’s dissent was that this case was another in a series of similar cases that had been conducted before in the effort of clarifying what distinguished a ‘violent felony’ under ACCA from other crimes (Reavis, 2012). Scalia argued that it was unreasonable for the court to use similar ACCA’s residual provision to make a justified ruling even though this clause has proven to be ineffective and a total failure, thus the need for declaring it void for vagueness.

   Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page

   GET CUSTOM PAPER
8. The basis for Kagan’s dissent, in this case, is that it was unconstitutional to apply the same test used in the case of Begay v. the United States given the fact that it this test did not appear in ACCA hence the majority’s partial retreat from Begay only resulted to the ACCA’s residual clause become more confusing, muddy and void (Reavis, 2012).
9. The dissenting opinions make more sense to me than the majority opinion. That is because the dissenting opinions acknowledge the error committed by the majority judges in refusing to apply the aggressive, violent, and purposeful test that was created in the case of Begay v. the United States (Reavis, 2012).

Case Found at 788N.W.2d 509

Below are responses to the case found at 788N.W.2d 509

1. State v. Wiggins, 500 S.E.2d 489, 330 S.C. 538
2. The novel police procedure, in this case, involved Kara Breci ordering Frank Wiggins to step out of the car soon after she noted that he was nervous while Breci’s partner questioned the rear occupant. Such nervousness made Breci become suspicious of Wiggin, thus the reason for asking him to step out of the car so that she could search for any illegal object such as drugs or unregistered firearm. Breci then pat-frisked Wiggan for weapons where she felt a hard object in the front pocket of Wiggins while she was pulling his pants up, which were already hanging down around Wiggins’ knees (Avdija, 2014). Breci then arrested Wiggin for having a firearm despite being an ineligible person.
3. The issue, in this case, is on whether officer Kara Breci’s act of frisking Frank Wiggins after ordering him out of the car and pulling up his sagging pants can be considered as constitutional or not.
4. According to the Court, based on the Fourth Amendment, when the officer pulled up Wiggins’ pants, she was searching because she ordered Wiggins to raise his hands and reasonably adjusted Wiggins’ excessively sagging pants. It was during that process that he felt a hard object in the Wiggins’ pocket. However, it is good to note that the act of Breci adjusting Wiggins’ sagging pants did not in itself constitute a search and was not in any way conducted in a manner that would raise any constitutional concerns (Avdija, 2014).

Case Found at 128 S.Ct. 558

Below are responses to the case found at 128 S.Ct. 558

1. Kimbrough v. the United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S. Ct. 558, 169 L. Ed. 2d 481, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 13082
2. The issue before the court, in this case, involved the illegal distribution of both crack and powder cocaine by Derrick Kimbrough, thus violating the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act of the United States.
3. The 100 to 1 ratio contained in the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act was that any deviation from this ratio would be considered logically incoherent when combined with mandatory minimum sentences that are based on the 100 to 1 ratio (Yeh, Doyle & American Law Division, 2008).
4. United States Sentencing Commission statement regarding the much more severe penalty for crack cocaine than powder cocaine was because this provision promoted double standards in the application of the rule of law by giving different sentencing for similar criminal acts (Yeh, Doyle & American Law Division, 2008).