Our Previous Samples

The final chapter, "Locked Up: Police, the Prison Industrial Complex, Black Youth, and Social Control," identifies the prison system as a central reference point for the cult of authenticity in hip-hop, as well as a focal point of hip-hop activism.

In your opinion, does the contemporary Hip Hop Culture glamourize, or bring awareness to issues such as the Prison Industrial Complex? What types of training should be available to Law enforcement officers who may not be versed in the Hip Hop Culture? How can this recent trend of mass incarceration be reversed? Can it be reversed?

Remember that you must submit a minimum of (2) posts to this discussion forum for this discussion board assignment.

(a) One Primary Post: this post should contain your response to the items noted above and must be a minimum of 300 words.

(b) One Secondary Post: this is a reply to another student in the class providing substantive feedback and analysis regarding their post to the discussion forum and must be a minimum of 150 words.

The “clear and present danger” test and the rule against “prior restraints” broadly protect certain basic First Amendment freedoms. Discuss these two standards, commenting on leading cases in which they have been applied by the Supreme Court. You should view the “clear and present danger” test in broad historical context, including the reaffirmation of this test by the “imminent lawless action” standard invoked in Brandenburg v. Ohio. Under what circumstances would the “clear and present danger” test allow the government to place limitations on speech? Under what circumstances would
government be permitted to disregard the rule against prior restraints

Delineate and critique the three-part test for determining obscenity rendered in Miller v. California. In your opinion does the Miller test clarify the legal definition of obscenity or fail to do so?

Discuss the constitutional arguments surrounding state and local efforts to force civic and social clubs to admit women and minorities as members. How has the Supreme Court addressed this issue?

Discuss the constitutional problem of "just takings" as it relates to social and economic regulation.

Minimum of 300 words

Please list and discuss in detail, any four major categories which constitute exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Does the exclusionary rule support the truth if it excludes evidence which otherwise is useful but rejects the evidence just based on manner it was obtained? WHAT IS THE SILVER PLATTER DOCTRINE?

What is the exclusionary rule and what are the major objectives of the rule? Is the exclusionary rule expressly provided in the US Constitution? Offer detailed argument both for and against the exclusionary rule. Which one of the two positions helps decrease crime and why? DOES THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE DETER POLICE MISCONDUCT?

BURGER KING CORP v. RUDZEWICZ (1985)

NOTE: (P) is for Plaintiff (one who sues) and (D) is for Defendant (one who is sued and must defend himself/herself). Jurisdiction means authority to hear a case and Home Forum means the venue or place for the trial.

Here is a sample legal brief of the famous Burger King case:  Follow the FIRAC Steps below.

1. FACTS: Facts of the case (Summary): Rudzewicz (D) contracted for a Burger King franchise in Michigan with the Burger King Corp. (P), a Florida corporation.  A franchise was granted. The terms of the contract called for substantial supervision of the franchise’s operations by Burger King (P), and also for the laws of Florida to apply in the case. Despite the fact that Rudzewicz (D) was a sophisticated businessman, the business failed, and Burger King brought suit for unpaid rent. The Florida district court granted damages and injunctive relief to Burger King (P), but the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision, holding that Rudzewicz (D) was not subject to Florida jurisdiction. In other words, Burger King won its case in the Florida District Trial Court but then appealed to the federal Circuit Court (Eleventh Circuit Court) where the District Court decision was reversed. Burger King (P) appealed to the Supreme Court of the U.S., arguing for a reversal of award of damages and injunctive relief for breach of contract by Rudzewicz.
2. ISSUE: May direct and continuous contacts by a franchisee with the franchisor lead to the franchisee being subject to the jurisdiction of the franchisor’s home forum?
3. RULE OF LAW: Direct and continuous contacts by a franchisee with the franchisor may lead to the franchisee being subject to the jurisdiction of the franchisor’s home town.
4. HOLDING OR DECISION OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:  YES. Justice Brennan (Brennan, J.), writing for the Majority, held that direct and continuous contacts by the franchisee with the franchisor may lead to the franchisee being subject to the jurisdiction of the franchisor’s home forum.

• Analysis: In this case, the main test for personal jurisdiction is whether a defendant’s actions were such that he should have been notified of the possibility of becoming subject to the subject’s forum’s jurisdiction. In his case, Rudzewicz (D) contracted with the Florida franchisor and entered into a contract providing for a continuous relationship with that franchisor and constant monitoring by the franchisor. Further, the contract stated that it was to be construed as a Florida contract. Thus, considering Rudzewicz’s (D) contacts with Florida, an adequate basis for jurisdiction existed. Thus, the Supreme Court of the U.S. REVERSED the decision of the Eleventh Circuit and ruled in favor of Burger King.

Dissent: (Stevens, J.). Justice Stevens dissented, arguing that the Burger King Corporation was a typical and large operation connected to the franchisor’s home office only in name. Since the business was purely local, only local jurisdiction should apply.

5. CONCLUSION: Burger King (P) brought an action against Rudzewicz, a defaulting franchisee, in Burger King’s (P) home forum, that is, in Florida and not in Rudzewicz home forum. The rationale for the Supreme Court’s opinion in deciding for Burger King was the clause making the contract a Florida one. Most contracts involving parties in different states have such clauses. Thus, the Court determined that there was direct and continuous contact by the franchisee, Rudzewicz (D) and the franchisor, Burger King (P). Rudzewicz (D) was therefore subject to the jurisdiction of Burger King’s (P) home forum of Florida.

Define reasonable suspicion. For what purpose can it be used in law enforcement? Compare probable cause with reasonable suspicion – be detailed please. WHAT IS A "HUNCH" USED FOR IN LAW ENFORCEMENT?

What is probable cause? What are the three ways whereby probable cause is established? How does one differ from the other?  What do you need probable cause to do in law enforcement? WHO IS A MAN OF REASONABLE CAUTION IN LAW?