Opinion
Ms. Justice Martinez delivers the opinion of the court.
Appellant stands convicted of murdering Mr. Thompkins and possession of an illegal firearm. The Supreme Court of New Jersey found the conviction valid based primarily upon the confession unlawfully obtained from the appellant and the evidence brought to the court which was also unlawfully collected at the victim’s home.
On December 24, the Ocean County Sherriff’s department was called to a wellness check of Mr. Thompkins. When Detective Sergeant Ron DeLaponte and Detective Brenda Diaz arrived to the scene, the Sherriff’s department was already on the scene. The first responding officers check the body and concluded that Mr. Thompkins was deceased. The officers immediately …show more content…
Thompkins, the first responding officers swept through the apartment and removed Mr. Thompkins’s articles. There was no probable cause or warrant to remove these items. After the fact, the detectives discovered the cause of death to Mr. Thompkins was a gunshot wound.
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) held that the police officers did not have the right to search an entire house without probable cause for a warrant. This ruling supports the violation of the Fourth Amendment in the case against Slim Workman. Chimel v. California holds the doctrine to the Fourth Amendment. The officers did not obtained a warrant or have probable cause to search and remove evidence from the house of Mr. Thompkins.
II.
During the illegal seizure, a World War II-era caliber automatic pistol was recovered. The pistol was confiscated due to violating an Ocean County ordinance. The Supreme Court holds this is in violation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court laws overrides city and county ordinance. Recently, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) held that the City of Chicago was denying McDonald his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The City of Chicago banned guns but under the Fourteenth Amendment—Due Process Clause the Court held that the Second Amendment does apply to individual …show more content…
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) held that prisons must give proper medical care to inmates under the Eight Amendment of the United States Constitution. Slim Workman was denied medical care as requested. By denying Mr. Workman medical care, his Eight Amendment rights are violated. West indicates in order to avoid cruel and unusual punishment that prisoners must be given proper medical attention. The Court holds that Slim Workman was not given proper medical attention as stated under the Eight Amendment.
V.
Slim Workman also was not given the right to a counsel, which is his right under the Sixth Amendment. Slim Workman should have been given the right to a counsel if needed and under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment—Due Process Clause which was violated. The Supreme Court held in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) that there is a right to counsel or representation. The fact that Slim Workman was told that he should not get a counsel and threaten violates Powell. The Court holds Slim Workman’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment was violated.
Ms. Justice Martinez delivers the opinion of the court.
Appellant stands convicted of murdering Mr. Thompkins and possession of an illegal firearm. The Supreme Court of New Jersey found the conviction valid based primarily upon the confession unlawfully obtained from the appellant and the evidence brought to the court which was also unlawfully collected at the victim’s home.
On December 24, the Ocean County Sherriff’s department was called to a wellness check of Mr. Thompkins. When Detective Sergeant Ron DeLaponte and Detective Brenda Diaz arrived to the scene, the Sherriff’s department was already on the scene. The first responding officers check the body and concluded that Mr. Thompkins was deceased. The officers immediately …show more content…
Thompkins, the first responding officers swept through the apartment and removed Mr. Thompkins’s articles. There was no probable cause or warrant to remove these items. After the fact, the detectives discovered the cause of death to Mr. Thompkins was a gunshot wound.
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) held that the police officers did not have the right to search an entire house without probable cause for a warrant. This ruling supports the violation of the Fourth Amendment in the case against Slim Workman. Chimel v. California holds the doctrine to the Fourth Amendment. The officers did not obtained a warrant or have probable cause to search and remove evidence from the house of Mr. Thompkins.
II.
During the illegal seizure, a World War II-era caliber automatic pistol was recovered. The pistol was confiscated due to violating an Ocean County ordinance. The Supreme Court holds this is in violation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court laws overrides city and county ordinance. Recently, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) held that the City of Chicago was denying McDonald his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The City of Chicago banned guns but under the Fourteenth Amendment—Due Process Clause the Court held that the Second Amendment does apply to individual …show more content…
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) held that prisons must give proper medical care to inmates under the Eight Amendment of the United States Constitution. Slim Workman was denied medical care as requested. By denying Mr. Workman medical care, his Eight Amendment rights are violated. West indicates in order to avoid cruel and unusual punishment that prisoners must be given proper medical attention. The Court holds that Slim Workman was not given proper medical attention as stated under the Eight Amendment.
V.
Slim Workman also was not given the right to a counsel, which is his right under the Sixth Amendment. Slim Workman should have been given the right to a counsel if needed and under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment—Due Process Clause which was violated. The Supreme Court held in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) that there is a right to counsel or representation. The fact that Slim Workman was told that he should not get a counsel and threaten violates Powell. The Court holds Slim Workman’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment was violated.