ݺߣ

ݺߣShare a Scribd company logo
Students: Savannah Jordan, Dylan
   Schmid, and Zack Stevenson
    Teacher: Mrs. Washington
      3rd Period Government
          January 31, 2013
Wolf V. Colorado
Court Members

 Chief Justice: Fred M. Vinson
 Associate Justices: Hugo Black, Stanley F.
  Reed, Felix Frankfuiter, William O. Douglas,
  Frank Murphy, Robert H. Jackson, Wiley B.
  Rutle, and Harold H. Burton
What cause the case?

 Gertrude    Martin revealed that she had a
illegal abortion, done by Dr. Julius A. Wolf, in
   a back-alley abortion clinic. Police entered
    Wolf’s office and illegally seized a list of
women without a warrant. He was then found
guilty and took the trial to the Supreme Court
      for the police using illegally obtained
                     evidence.
Main Decision

 One of the main questions about this case
 was whether state had to follow the rules
 about illegal search and seizures set forth by
 the fourth and fourteenth amendments.
Writing dissent

 Writing dissenting opinions (an opinion in a
  legal case written by one or more judges
  expressing disagreement with the majority
  opinion of the court which rise to its
  judgment) (A dissenting opinion does not
  create a binding precedent nor does it
  become part of case law) were Stanley
  Reed, Robert H. Jackson, and Harold Hiltz
  Burton, Hugo Black wrote his own.
When did this happen?

 Itwas argued October 19, 1948.
 The outcome was decided June 27, 1949.
 Mapp V. Ohio over ruled the case 12 years
  later(1961).
What was the outcome?

 Thecourt decided to take Colorado’s side.
 The court said that the 14th amendment says
 they could do it, now. Colorado won the case
 6-3 over Wolf.
Opinions
   Savannah- I think that under proper warranting, they should be
    able to search. I do believe that the police could have came
    about the problem different.
   Zack- The police shouldn’t have entered without a written
    warrant, I believe that since they ransacked his property that
    they should pay in full for damages caused by police brutality. I
    believed that Wolf should have won the case.
   Dylan- I believe that it was unfair to Wolf that he was tried and
    lost because of evidence that according to our constitution was
    illegally obtained. Wolf for the WIN!!!!!!
Resources


 http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-proce

 http://www.invispress.com/law/justice/wolf.html

More Related Content

What's hot (15)

PPT
The History of Shays’s Rebellion
reach
PPT
Acheivements Of The Indian Empires
logikeet13
PPT
New Deal Programs
mrbruns
PPTX
Open stax history_ch17 go west young man - westward expansion, 1840-1900_imag...
Lumen Learning
PDF
NASCIDOS DO SANGUE
Claudio José Ayrosa Rosière
PPT
1850 to 1914 political themes
guest9b88ea
PDF
The North American Government
ICJ-ICC
PPT
The Progressive Era
mrbruns
PPT
Red scare Palmer raids
Sanger Unified
PDF
We Must Abolish the United States
ICJ-ICC
PPTX
Muckrakers
Diana Fordham
PPT
Wilsons 14 point plan powerpoint
lloydy12341
PPT
Conditions and Reactions of Industrial Revolution
Greg Sill
PPT
A c 20 us chapter 20
Sandra Waters
The History of Shays’s Rebellion
reach
Acheivements Of The Indian Empires
logikeet13
New Deal Programs
mrbruns
Open stax history_ch17 go west young man - westward expansion, 1840-1900_imag...
Lumen Learning
1850 to 1914 political themes
guest9b88ea
The North American Government
ICJ-ICC
The Progressive Era
mrbruns
Red scare Palmer raids
Sanger Unified
We Must Abolish the United States
ICJ-ICC
Muckrakers
Diana Fordham
Wilsons 14 point plan powerpoint
lloydy12341
Conditions and Reactions of Industrial Revolution
Greg Sill
A c 20 us chapter 20
Sandra Waters

Viewers also liked (7)

PPT
Pedestrian Safety on the Arabian Peninsula
Paul Supawanich
PPTX
Evalution question 3
sibora93
PDF
10.1.1.2.8373
snona
PPTX
Occupancy sensors models blaze automation
Blaze_Hyd
PPTX
Q3 part 2 sibora
sibora93
PPTX
Lutw vle for unac -dr. dave irvine halliday
Blaze_Hyd
PPTX
Blaze automation profile india 2009
Blaze_Hyd
Pedestrian Safety on the Arabian Peninsula
Paul Supawanich
Evalution question 3
sibora93
10.1.1.2.8373
snona
Occupancy sensors models blaze automation
Blaze_Hyd
Q3 part 2 sibora
sibora93
Lutw vle for unac -dr. dave irvine halliday
Blaze_Hyd
Blaze automation profile india 2009
Blaze_Hyd
Ad

Similar to Wolf V. Colorado (20)

PPTX
Wolf vs. c olorado
darcedelagarza
DOCX
httpswww.youtube.comembedRTvzNCxewQIwmode=opaque&rel=0http
LizbethQuinonez813
PPTX
Constitutional law unit 3
Mike Wilkie
PPTX
Constitutional law unit 3
Mike Wilkie
PPTX
Constitutional Issues - Chapter 7
mpalaro
PPTX
US Case Law
alexa_sheridan
PPTX
Us Case Law
k302110
PPT
Case law project
cblfinkelstein
PDF
We The People, session vii, Rights of the Accused
Jim Powers
DOCX
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d .docx
mehek4
DOCX
362017 Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 US 478 - Supreme Court 1964.docx
tamicawaysmith
DOC
Leg 420 Success Begins / snaptutorial.com
WilliamsTaylor18
DOC
LEG 420 Massive Success / snaptutorial.com
Stephenson159
DOCX
HowtoBriefaCase A case brief is a written summary.docx
pooleavelina
PPT
Schmalleger Chapter 5 Policing legal aspects
gregory riley
PDF
Exigent Circumstances
Shain Thomas
PPT
LUK13
LUK13
DOCX
CJ 500 Sample Case Brief Facts Mr. Miranda was arrest.docx
sleeperharwell
PDF
Brief strip search darren chaker
Darren Chaker
PPTX
US case law project
vincenttulley11
Wolf vs. c olorado
darcedelagarza
httpswww.youtube.comembedRTvzNCxewQIwmode=opaque&rel=0http
LizbethQuinonez813
Constitutional law unit 3
Mike Wilkie
Constitutional law unit 3
Mike Wilkie
Constitutional Issues - Chapter 7
mpalaro
US Case Law
alexa_sheridan
Us Case Law
k302110
Case law project
cblfinkelstein
We The People, session vii, Rights of the Accused
Jim Powers
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d .docx
mehek4
362017 Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 US 478 - Supreme Court 1964.docx
tamicawaysmith
Leg 420 Success Begins / snaptutorial.com
WilliamsTaylor18
LEG 420 Massive Success / snaptutorial.com
Stephenson159
HowtoBriefaCase A case brief is a written summary.docx
pooleavelina
Schmalleger Chapter 5 Policing legal aspects
gregory riley
Exigent Circumstances
Shain Thomas
LUK13
LUK13
CJ 500 Sample Case Brief Facts Mr. Miranda was arrest.docx
sleeperharwell
Brief strip search darren chaker
Darren Chaker
US case law project
vincenttulley11
Ad

Wolf V. Colorado

  • 1. Students: Savannah Jordan, Dylan Schmid, and Zack Stevenson Teacher: Mrs. Washington 3rd Period Government January 31, 2013
  • 3. Court Members  Chief Justice: Fred M. Vinson  Associate Justices: Hugo Black, Stanley F. Reed, Felix Frankfuiter, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, Robert H. Jackson, Wiley B. Rutle, and Harold H. Burton
  • 4. What cause the case?  Gertrude Martin revealed that she had a illegal abortion, done by Dr. Julius A. Wolf, in a back-alley abortion clinic. Police entered Wolf’s office and illegally seized a list of women without a warrant. He was then found guilty and took the trial to the Supreme Court for the police using illegally obtained evidence.
  • 5. Main Decision  One of the main questions about this case was whether state had to follow the rules about illegal search and seizures set forth by the fourth and fourteenth amendments.
  • 6. Writing dissent  Writing dissenting opinions (an opinion in a legal case written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which rise to its judgment) (A dissenting opinion does not create a binding precedent nor does it become part of case law) were Stanley Reed, Robert H. Jackson, and Harold Hiltz Burton, Hugo Black wrote his own.
  • 7. When did this happen?  Itwas argued October 19, 1948.  The outcome was decided June 27, 1949.  Mapp V. Ohio over ruled the case 12 years later(1961).
  • 8. What was the outcome?  Thecourt decided to take Colorado’s side. The court said that the 14th amendment says they could do it, now. Colorado won the case 6-3 over Wolf.
  • 9. Opinions  Savannah- I think that under proper warranting, they should be able to search. I do believe that the police could have came about the problem different.  Zack- The police shouldn’t have entered without a written warrant, I believe that since they ransacked his property that they should pay in full for damages caused by police brutality. I believed that Wolf should have won the case.  Dylan- I believe that it was unfair to Wolf that he was tried and lost because of evidence that according to our constitution was illegally obtained. Wolf for the WIN!!!!!!