Analysis of the Filed against Birth Choices, Inc - Case Study Example

ITEM 1A The issue in this case is whether or not the case filed against Birth Choices, Inc. is a violation under the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment and therefore, should be dismissed. While it is true that the First Amendment provides freedom for everyone to speak up what they feel or what they deem is right, the freedom of speech is not absolute. Freedom of speech will not clothe anyone, or any group, who, in a public place will use language or words that are likely to cause a "breach of the peace." These include statements that contain profane, libelous, defamatory, lewd, profane, or insulting word that is most likely to provoke violent reactions at their very utterance. In this case, the acts of the members of Christian for Life in yelling out "Murderers!" and of splashing ketchup to the members of the Birth Choices, Inc., are defamatory and tends to invite a violent reaction by the latter group. Thus, the speech and the act were not healthy exercise of freedom of speech and are not protected under the First Amendment. Being the facts, the motion to dismiss should be denied and the case should be set for trial. ITEM 1B The issue is whether or not the corporate logo of the Birth Choices, Inc. hung on the entrance of the city center is obscene and should be taken down. The US Supreme Court defined in numerous decided cases an obscene material as those that deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. It further defines material appealing to prurient interest as "material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts," and defined prurient interest as a "shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion. It further stressed that only "hardcore" materials are not protected under the First Amendment. "Hardcore" materials include those "patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated." In this case, since the contested logo is in the form of silhouette, it cannot be considered as a hardcore material. There is no patent representation of a sexual act between a man and a woman since a silhouette can be interpreted in many ways. The representation is not strong enough to excite lustful thoughts, therefore, is not obscene. ITEM #2 The issue in this case is whether or not there is a violation of the right to confrontation clause under the Sixth Amendment. The right to confrontation is a vital right for every individual because this can afford fair trial for an accused in a criminal case. The accused will be given the opportunity to meet and cross-examine the witness face-to-face, and the jury may look at the witness and make judgment based from the acts of the witness on the stand while giving his testimony whether he is worthy of belief, thus, it eliminates hearsay evidences. However, in the case of Maryland v. Craig, the US Supreme Court said that the confrontation clause does not grant an absolute right to face-to-face confrontation but it only reflects a preference. This can be overcome to further an important public policy as long as the reliability of the testimony is assured. In short, the right can be set aside if there is a finding through a case study that it is necessary to suspend such right. The contention of the District Attorney is tenable considering the fact that an undercover agent plays a vital role for the successful pursuit of a state's objective to minimize crime. In performing their tasks, most especially in providing vital testimony against an individual in a criminal case, there is an assurance of reliability, since they owe allegiance to the government they serve. However, there is a high risk of hazard in this occupation. Thus, they deserved to be protected under the law and be exempted from the confrontation clause as in this case. ITEM #3 The constitutional issues involve in this case are the following: 1) Whether or not there is a valid search and seizure that was conducted; and 2) Whether or not the gun and the drugs seized from the suspects can be used as an evidence against them Search and seizure cannot be conducted by any peace officer without warrant. Warrants in order to be lawful must be in accordance to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. However, the US Supreme Court enumerated in numerous cases the instances when warrant is no longer necessary in order for police officers to conduct search and seizure. One of which is the Stop-and Frisk-Rule that was applied in this case. This case was patterned in the case of Terry v. Ohio that allowed police officers to search or "frisk" suspicious acting individuals who refused to cooperate on-the-street investigation for weapons that might endanger the police officers conducting the search. It also permits some stops and questioning without probable cause in order to allow officers to explore the foundations of their suspicions. If deadly weapons or other contrabands were discovered as a result of stop-and-frisk, that can be seized and can be used as evidence against the accused in a criminal case that will be filed against them. Following the dictum in this case, the drugs and the gun were legally obtained by the police officers as a result of a valid stop-and-frisk, therefore, cannot be suppressed. The charges filed in court are valid and the motion is hereby dismissed. ITEM #4 The Constitutional issues that can be raised in this case are the following: 1) Can a government agent enter the house of a suspect/owner to search for evidences without warrant but with the permission of another person who is a relative of the owner 2) Can search for evidences be conducted before a warrant is served It is a constitutional requirement under the Fourth Amendment that before a law enforcement agent can enter the house of a person to search for evidences, there shall be a valid warrant. In a number of cases, the US Supreme Court recognized that the principal object of the Fourth Amendment is the protection of the privacy rather than the property. Entering the house of a person, without the required warrant is tantamount to trespassing and the trespasser may be held liable under the law, much more, if search was made without the owner's consent. With regards to the second issue, the Court also reiterated in a number of cases that a warrant should be first issued before a search is made. This is true in cases or instances that do not fall under the warrantless search which are also limited In both of the instances, since the FBI agent did not comply with the requirements set by law, the search is unjustifiable. The firearm can be seized and be place in the custody of the law since it is contraband. However, it can not be used as evidence against the defendant in the case filed against him. Read More