The Background of New Jersey v. TLO (1985)

In 1984, in the Piscataway Township High School in New Jersey, a female student who was classified as a minor at the time of her arrest was convicted of possessing illegal paraphernalia utilized for the consumption of Marijuana; the acronym ‘T.L.O’ was given to her as a result of her status as a minor. The arrest occurred after the student was caught smoking Marijuana; subsequent to her being caught, the high school administration enacted a search of both her and her belongings – as a result of the search, they discovered that she was indeed in possession of paraphernalia presumed to be drug-related:

Within the student’s trial, she maintained that the school had violated her 4th Amendment rights, which provide for the protection of citizens of the United States from unlawful searches and investigative measures undertaken by law enforcement and authoritative entities

The student maintained that the school retained no right to search her belongings, which resulted in what she had cited as an expressed violation of her privacy

The Case Profile of New Jersey v. TLO

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘New Jersey v. TLO’:

Date of the Trial: March 28th, 1984

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by ‘TLO’ against the State of New Jersey:

Although the student was caught smoking illegal narcotics on school grounds, she had maintained that her right to privacy had been violated as a result of the investigation undertaken by the school’s administration

United States Reports Case Number: 469 U.S. 325

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: January 15th, 1985

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the New Jersey v. TLO case:

The State of New Jersey was the plaintiff of the case

‘TLO’ – the acronym given to the high school student who was classified as a minor – was the defendant in the case

Verdict Delivered: The student was to remain guilty as charged; the Supreme Court stated that not only did her being caught smoking illegal narcotics serve as probable cause for the investigation, but events occurring on public school grounds are required to both be in adherence to legislation, as well as at the discretion of the institution

Associated Legislation with regard to New Jersey v. TLO: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the New Jersey v. TLO trial:

The 4th Amendment prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of resident belonging to citizens of the United States of America; this amendment also defines the rights of privacy awarded to citizens of the United States

Probable Cause is the legal instrument in which a law enforcement agent retains the right to search personal, private property belonging to an individual; this concept is rooted in suspicion and concern for the public well-being

The Background of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2010)

In May of 2009, the County Court of Alameda County in the State of California had refused to allow same-sex couple Kristin Perry and Sandra Steir to receive a marriage license from the State of California, which would result in the legal recognition of their matrimony. As a result, Perry brought her case before the State Court of the State of California in order to dispute the illegality that she had maintained had befallen her and her partner. The ruling of the case rendered a verdict in favor of Perry, stating that Proposition 8 was in direct violation of her – and her partner’s – 14th Amendment Rights:

Proposition 8 was a proposed legislative Amendment to the State Constitution of California, which would remand preexisting legislature forbidding the marriage of couples of the same sex

The Equality Clause as expressed within the 14th Amendment to the Constitution allows the Federal Government to maintain authority over all legislation in the event that contrast and unfair advantage exists; this clause was imposed in order to ensure a uniform and equal legal treatment and process with regard to the general populace of the United States

The Due Process Clause as expressed within the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue bias and damage

The Case Profile of Perry v. Schwarzenegger

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Perry v. Schwarzenegger’:

Date of the Trial: August 4th, 2010

Date of the Appeal: The appeal set forth by the State of California is currently pending to be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Kristin M. Perry against the State of California within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Perry claimed that Proposition 8 was in direct violation of the civil rights and liberties entitled to individual citizens desiring to engage in legally-recognized, same-sex marriage(s)

California Circuit Court Case Number: No. 10-16696

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: August 4th, 2010

Legal Venue of Perry v. Schwarzenegger: United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case:

Kristin M. Perry; Plaintiff – Perry v. Schwarzenegger

The State of California; Defendant – Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Verdict Delivered:

Associated Legislation with regard to Perry v. Schwarzenegger: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial:

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

What is Picture Editing?

Picture Editing is the procedure of altering, modifying, and adjusting visual images or pictures, which can include drawing, photographs, film cells, or paintings. Within the realm of artistry and media, Picture Editing can take place in a variety of settings absent of political or ideological methodology; in contrast, Picture Editing taking place within the realm of censorship will tend to do so in accordance to the applicable authoritative guidelines latent within a particular – or jurisdictional – institution.

What Causes Picture Editing?

Within the act of Picture Editing lies a variety of classification parameters undertaken by both the administration mandating the Picture Editing, as well as the subject matter of the picture being edited; regulations and ideologies may range in nature with regard to religion, intended audience, public – or private – guidelines of acceptability, and statutory legislation. For example, the following circumstances in which Picture Editing took place differ both in the setting of the Picture editing, as well as the authoritarian reasoning behind the Picture editing:

Picture Editing of the Photograph of Joseph Stalin and Nikolai Yezhov (1940)

In 1920, following a speech given by Vladimir Lenin, a photograph of Joseph Stalin was taken with cabinet leader Nikolai Yezhov; however, in 1940 – subsequent to Yezhov’s execution – Stalin ordered that Yezhov be removed from the photograph. Due to the fact that two versions of the photograph were in existence, this type of Picture Editing incited concern on the part of Russian citizens that arose with regard to the integrity of the information and media provided to them by the Russian leadership.

Picture Editing of the Cover of National Geographic Magazine (1982)

In 1982, National Geographic magazine had features the Pyramids of Egypt on the cover of their publication; however, prior to the pressing of the issue, editors had noticed that the distance between the two pyramids would disallow for both pyramids to fit onto the cover of the magazine. As a result, the editors enacted measures of Picture Editing that altered the natural distance between the two pyramids in order to successfully allow them to fit on the cover:

Subsequent to the release of the issue of the magazine, National Geographic found themselves to be the subject a vast array of debate with regard to both the integrity of their photojournalism, as well as the legality surrounding the Picture Editing employed

Arguments were presented questioning the authority of a magazine considered to be rooted within factual and truthful portrayal of media to be permitted to depict fallacious imagery

Critics of National Geographic argued that legislation regulating the integrity of pictures  advertised as fact should be uniform with the legislation regulating text advertised as fact

Picture Editing Legislation

The National Press Photographers Association, which is also known by its acronym NPPA, has instated a code of ethics and procedure with regard to both the process and procedure of Picture Editing; this code was enacted in order to ensure that images rendered through photojournalism would be presented in authentic and factual manners in conjunction with the subject matter.

Who is Colin Ferguson?

Colin Ferguson is a convicted mass murderer responsible for the murder and injury of commuters on the Long Island Railroad (LIRR), which took place in a single killing spree on December 7th, 1993. On the day of the murders, Colin Ferguson purchased a train ticket at New York’s Pennsylvania Station and boarded a commuter train; at approximately 5:30 pm on that day, he was reported as walking down the aisles of the train car and executing passengers at random – after he had killed 6 passengers and injured 19 others, he was subdued by 3 of his fellow passengers.

Colin Ferguson Profile

The following outlines the crimes of Colin Ferguson

Date of Birth: Colin Ferguson was born on January 14th, 1958

Residence: Flatbush, Brooklyn in the State of New York

Year of First Killing: Colin Ferguson’s only reported killings took place on a single day on December 7th, 1993

Year of Apprehension: Subsequent to being subdued by other passengers on the train, Colin Ferguson was apprehended the same day as the shootings took place

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by Colin Ferguson; in addition, these case details were made mention within Colin Ferguson’s criminal trial:

Both parents of Colin Ferguson had died within a short time of each other; as a result, Colin Ferguson was reported as being unable to obtain a sufficient work visa – this was said to have frustrated Colin Ferguson with regard to his lack of gainful employment

The defense team offering representation to Colin Ferguson stated that he had acted out of ‘Black Rage’ – a term adopted by the defense in order to associate racial motivation to Colin Ferguson’s killings

Locations of the Murders: A train passing through Garden City, which is a village on Long Island, in the State of New York

Victims:  Colin Ferguson was charged for the murder of 6 individuals and the injuring of 19 from gun shot wounds

Status as a Serial Killer: Colin Ferguson is not classified as a serial killer, but instead, he is classified as a mass murderer; this is due to the fact that he murdered upwards of 4 people in a finite period of time – a serial killer is defined as a n individual responsible for killing 3 or more people in a month’s time prior to killing again

Nature of Victims: The 6 victims of Colin Ferguson’s murder spree were commuters on the Long Island Rail Road car named as: Amy Federici, James Gorycki, Mi Kyung Kim, Maria Magtoto, Dennis McCarthy, and Richard Nettleton – all of Colin Ferguson’s victims were listed as being Long Island residents.

Punishment and Conviction: On February 17th, 1995, Colin Ferguson was convicted of the murder of 6 individuals, as well as the attempted murder of 19 other individuals; prior to his trial, he was held in incarceration without bail or bond. Colin Ferguson is currently serving his 315 and ½ year sentence at the Attica Correctional Facility in the State of New York; he is considered to be serving a natural life sentence, which presumes that he will live out the duration of his natural life incarcerated,

Who is David Berkowitz?

David Berkowitz is a serial killer who undertook his murderous spree within the State of New York; he is commonly known in accordance to his moniker ‘Son of Sam’, which he had given to himself as a result of his assumed possession by a demonic spirit named ‘Sam’ – David Berkowitz claimed that his possessing demon instructed to him to commit murders through the use of a neighborhood dog as a mouthpiece for such instruction. David Berkowitz’s murderous spree took place between July of 1976 and August of 1977; he was convicted of the murder of 6 individuals and the attempted murder of 2 other individuals.

David Berkowitz Profile

The following outlines the crimes of David Berkowitz

Date of Birth: David Berkowitz was born on June 1st, 1952 in Brooklyn, New York

Residence: 25 Pine Street; this apartment was located in Yonkers, New York

Year of First Killing: David Berkowitz’s first victim was a female named Donna Lauria on July 29th, 1976; Lauria was in a parked car at the time of her murder

Year of Apprehension: After several reports submitted by Yonkers residents, David Berkowitz was arrested on August 10th, 1977; as the time of his arrest, he had a .44 Caliber Bulldog handgun on his person – this weapon matched the ballistic reports submitted with regard to the investigation of Berkowitz’s other murders

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by David Berkowitz; in addition, these case details were made mention within David Berkowitz’s criminal trial:

David Berkowitz had continually sent correspondence letters to local newspapers and law enforcement agencies in which he demanded that the letters be printed; within the text of his letters, he undertook ranting about his demonic possession and nature of his murders

Subsequent to his arrest and conviction, a legal statute known as the ‘Son of Sam Law’ was enacted that prohibited criminals from profiting from their crimes. Prior to this law being passed, criminals were permitted to be paid for exclusive interviews, in addition to render profit from the sale of their possessions to collectors

Locations of the Murders: David Berkowitz’s murderous spree spanned many of the 5 Boroughs of New York City, including Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn

Victims:  David Berkowitz was charged for the murder of 6 individuals, as well as the attempted murder of 8 individuals

Status as a Serial Killer: David Berkowitz is classified as a serial killer due to the fact that David Berkowitz was convicted of the murder of 3 or more individuals within the duration of a single month; subsequent to these murders, David Berkowitz undertook a break or a ‘rest’ for varying durations of time prior to continuing to murder

Nature of Victims: With regard to the 6 victims murdered by David Berkowitz, 5 of them were females named as Donna Lauria, Christine Freund, Virginia Voskerichian, Valentina Suriani, Stacy Moskowitz; 1 of Berkowitz’s victims was a male named Alexander Esau –  all of his victims were seated in parked cars prior to their respective murders

Punishment and Conviction: On June 12th, 1978, David Berkowitz was sentenced to 365 years in prison without the possibility of parole; he is currently serving his life sentence in the Attica Correctional Facility in the State of New York

The Background of the Michael Jackson Trial

Famed singer Michael Jackson was accused of child molestation subsequent to testimony given by 13 year old Gavin Arvizo; Arvizo maintained that Michael Jackson had allowed the minor victim to become intoxicated while on the premises of Michael Jackson’s residence deemed ‘Neverland Ranch’. Arvizo claimed that Michael Jackson had not only sexually-assaulted Arvizo, but also threatened to abduct the child’s parents in order to prevent any reports released to law enforcement. However, Michale Jackson denied any involvement in any of the allegations, claiming that the Arvizo family had hoped to extort monies from Jackson through the proposal of threats of testimony that Jackson had committed child molestation:

Extortion is defined as the criminal act undertaken by an individual or entity with the hopes of controlling, manipulating, or forcing the behavior of another individual or entity through the implementation of threat or blackmail

The Case Profile of the Michael Jackson Trial

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘The Michael Jackson Trial’:

Date of the Trial: January 31st, 2005

Legal Classification: Criminal Law; the legal field that focuses on both the prosecution and defense of criminal activity that may have occurred conducted in both public or private sectors; with regard to a criminal charge, the intent, motive, and behavior implemented by the perpetrator is taken into consideration both upon review as well as prior to sentencing

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Gavin Arvizo – while his parents, David Arvizo and Janet Arvizo – acted as his petitioners from the State of California – against Michael Jackson within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Child Molesters is defined as individuals who violate the rights of children or minors through a variety of actions, which may include exploitation, violence, and physical harm rooted within illicit, unlawful, and unethical sexual activity

5 Conspirators were named in conjunction with the charges filed against Jackson; the conspiracy charges involved the participation of the individuals with regard to the creation and arrangement of a plan to abduct the Arvizo family

Grand Jury of the State of California Case Number: 1133603

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 13th, 2005

Legal Venue of Michael Jackson: The State Court of California in Santa Barbara County

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Michael Jackson trial:

Gavin Arvizo; Plaintiff (minor)

David Arvizo; Plaintiff (parent of Gavin Arvizo, acting as petitioner)

Janet Arvizo; Plaintiff (parent of Gavin Arvizo, acting as petitioner)

Thomas Sneddon; Prosecuting Attorney

Michael Jackson; Defendant

Frank Tyson; Defendant (accused conspirator)

Vincent Amen; Defendant (accused conspirator)

Marc Schaffel; Defendant (accused conspirator)

Dieter Wiesner; Defendant (accused conspirator)

Ronald Konitzer; Defendant (accused conspirator)

Mark Geragos; Defense Attorney (replaced mid-case)

Benjamin Brafman; Defense Attorney (replaced mid-case)

Thomas Mesereau; Defense Attorney (replacement)

Verdict Delivered: Michael Jackson was arraigned of all charges filed against him, due to the fact that not only was the testimony delivered by the Arvizo family found to be faulty, but the jury maintained that the behavior enacted by the Arvizo family was indicative of extortion.

The Background of Miller v. California (1973)

Miller v. California was a Supreme Court case involving an individual named Marvin Miller, who was in ownership of a commercial operation that undertook the provision of items considered to be ‘sexually explicit’ in nature. In 1972, Miller undertook an advertising campaign in which he disseminated a mass amount of letters to individuals who did not request such information; a mother and her child received one of Miller’s advertisements and were offended by the nature of the publications – shortly afterwards, they complained to California law enforcement:

Miller was found guilty of disseminating material considered to be unsuitable and objectionable with regard to the public sector; however, Miller appealed the verdict with regard to the determination of ‘obscene’ – he claimed that the ruling was a violation of his 1st Amendment Rights, which awarded him the freedom of speech and expression

The Case Profile of Miller v. California

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Miller v. California’:

Date of the Trial: January 19th, 1972

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Miller against the State of California

Marvin Miller claimed that he was being unlawfully censored due to the fact that both the concept and notion of material deemed to be ‘obscene’ was determined on a subjective basis

United States Reports Case Number: 413 U.S. 15

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 21st, 1973

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Miller v. California case:

Marvin Miller, in the midst of Miller v. California, was the plaintiff of the case; this case took place in an appellate forum following the prior guilty verdict issued to him

The State of California was the defendant within Miller v. California

Verdict Delivered: Marvin Miller was found guilty of the misdemeanor of distributing material that could be considered to be objectionable in nature

Associated Legislation with regard to Miller v. California: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Miller v. California trial:

The 1st Amendment affords citizens of the United States with the freedom of religion, the freedom of press, the freedom of speech, and the right of assembly

The development of the ’Miller Test’, which is defined as methodology of the classification of whether or not material is to be deemed as obscene; this includes the application of community standards and the preservation of wellbeing within the public sector, the degree of offensiveness latent within the expression in question, and an analysis of the expressed intent of the creator

What is Miranda v. Arizona (1966)?

Miranda v. Arizona was a court case that took place in the State of Arizona in which Ernesto Miranda, a 22 year old male, was accused of raping an 18 year old female in 1963. Upon his apprehension, Miranda was presented with a confession requiring his signature; Miranda underwent a police interrogation that was reported as spanning upwards of 2 hours – within his interrogation, he made a full confession, agreeing that he did so without duress, force, or threat. However, Miranda’s attorneys argued that not only did the arresting officers not make Miranda aware of his right to representation, but they also neglected to advise Miranda of his right to remain silent in order to avoid any nature of self-incrimination:

Subsequent to the initial verdict, Miranda was found guilty of the charge of rape; however, he appealed the verdict and Miranda v. Arizona was heard before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court hearing undertook judicial review with regard to the validity of a confession with regard to the level of information provided to the suspect in question

The 5th Amendment of the constitution requires a suspect be informed of a right to remain silent upon an arrest; The 6th Amendment requires a suspect under arrest to be informed to their right to a fair and represented hearing

The Case Profile of Miranda v. Arizona

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Miranda v. Arizona’:

Date of the Trial: 1966

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: Although Miranda was accused of rape, the appeal addressed the lack of due process within Miranda’s arrest

United States Reports Case Number: 384 U.S. 436

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 13th, 1966

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of State of Arizona

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

Verdict Delivered: Warren found that both Miranda’s 5th and 6th Amendment rights had been violated; however, supplementary evidence contributed to the finding of a ‘guilty’ verdict with regard to the rape trial – Miranda served 11 years in prison

Associated Legislation with regard to Miranda v. Arizona: The Miranda Rights were established subsequent to the hearing of Miranda v. Arizona; these statutes state that upon an arrest protocol that be upheld by any and all arresting officers:

The Miranda Rights include the Fifth Amendment, which states that an individual retains the right to remain silent in order to avoid incriminating themselves – this is also known as ‘pleading the Fifth’

The Miranda Rights require that arrestees are made aware of their respective right to counsel and trial

The right for any words spoken during the arrest to be admissible during a trial

The right to consult with an attorney; regardless of financial stature

Who is John Gotti?

John Gotti was an individual who is considered to be one of the most notorious and prolific conspirators and participants within organized criminal activity within the United States within the 20th century; he is credited as serving as the head, a term commonly referred to as ‘Boss’, of the Gambino Crime Family – the Gambino Family is one of the 5 most recognized criminal families existing within the United States:

As a member of an organized criminal operation deeply rooted in family ties, this criminal operation was structured in conjunction with a ‘familial’ hierarchical system in which its members participated

John Gotti engaged in both outwardly illegal activity, as well as clandestine criminal activity under the guise of legitimate business activity; as a result, he is reported as participating in both mob and mafia activity criminal in nature

John Gotti was given the nickname of ‘The Teflon Don’ as a result of his multiple arraignments of criminal charges taking place within the 1980’s; this title was formed as a result of the nature of the material classified as Teflon – this material provides a slick and slippery surface

The Case Profile of John Gotti

The following is a case profile of both the crimes of John Gotti, as well as a legal classification of statutory legislation associated with the case:

Date of Birth: John Gotti was born on October 27th, 1940 in The Bronx, New York; he died while incarcerated on June 10th, 2002 in the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri – he had suffered from terminal throat cancer

Residence: New York, New York

Dates of Crimes: John Gotti’s first crime is reported as a hijacking offense that took place at John F. Kennedy Airport in Queens, New York in 1968; in conjunction with his apprehension, he was charged with the illegal seizure and possession of stolen goods

Criminal Charges: John Gotti was charged with the following crimes over the course of his involvement in criminal activity:

Murder

Conspiracy

Racketeering; violating the RICO statutes

Obstruction of Justice

Tax Evasion

Money Laundering

Date of the Trial: April 2nd, 1992

Legal Venue: United States Eastern District Court of New York State

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by John Gotti; in addition, these case details were made mention within John Gotti’s criminal trial:

John Gotti was charged and convicted with the murder of 13 individuals; evidence and testimony furnished by fellow crime family member Samuel Gravano assisted in John Gotti’s conviction – Gravano was later placed in the witness protection program

While in prison, John Gotti was suspected of bribery and the conspiracy to commit murder of a fellow prisoner

Verdict Delivered: April 2nd, 1992

Punishment and Conviction: Subsequent to his conviction, John Gotti was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole; prior to his death in a Medical Facility for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, he resided in the United States Federal Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois