• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!



Page history last edited by abogado 10 years, 1 month ago

Agenda 17-34

LPR Summaries - Law 17 - Spring 2014 


  Case Name  Legal Principle
(General Area of the law) 
Rule of the case   specific "key words" 

Klayman v Obama


con law  
4th am -  
right to privacy
telephone numbers 
Smith v Maryland -  phone record belongs to phone company, cannot expect privacy of your phone number - your phone number is not your thing, so no right to privacy - no viol of 4th am    

POLICY - protection of society against terrorism  vs. our right to privacy. EVIDENCE - GOVT - conversations, phone numbers can be linked to terrorist activities  INDIVIDUAL - phone number is expression of your speech. 
2/26 Stop and Frisk

con law
4th am
stop and frisk
based on race
racial profiling 


Monelli v NY - In general, "[o]fficial municipal policy includes the decisions of a government's lawmakers, the acts of its policymaking officials, and practices so persistent and widespread as to practically have the force of law
"deliberate indifference"   
3/5 Hispanic Interest
con law
14th am

sec 28 HB56 - citizen protection act -  required proof of citenship
court found it to be unconstitutional  

"state enjoys no power with respect to the classification of aliens"
only congress has power 
3/5 Little v State of Florida  

criminal law
self defense
deadly force
if justified 
2nd degree murder

activity was unlawful  

immunity under section 776.012(1) - 776.032(1)
Stand your Ground 
to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm 
if justified 
3/12  Snyder v Phelps 

1st AM
freedom of speech
tort - harm 0- IIED 

picket on public property

matter of public concern 
4/2/14    Illnois v Melongo 

1st am
criminal statute  

  intermediate scrutiny of criminal statute. - does not substanitallly burden freedom of speech more than necessary

due process - criminal statute must be clear and give fair warning about what is the criminal conduct - cannot be vague, or ambiguos or overly broad. 




Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.