California v carney. California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 2022-10-16
California v carney Rating:
6,9/10
961
reviews
The strengths perspective is a social work approach that focuses on the strengths, abilities, and resources of individuals and communities rather than their deficits or problems. It is based on the belief that everyone has strengths and capabilities that can be utilized to overcome challenges and achieve personal and community goals. This approach emphasizes the importance of empowering individuals and communities to identify and build on their own strengths and capacities, rather than relying on external resources or interventions.
One of the main strengths of the strengths perspective is that it promotes a positive and hopeful view of individuals and communities. Rather than viewing people as helpless or dependent, the strengths perspective recognizes the inherent potential and resilience of individuals and communities. This approach helps to build confidence and self-esteem, as well as foster a sense of agency and empowerment.
Another key strength of the strengths perspective is that it takes a holistic approach to problem-solving. Rather than focusing solely on addressing specific problems or issues, the strengths perspective takes into account the broader context in which individuals and communities live and work. This approach recognizes that people are influenced by a wide range of factors, including social, economic, cultural, and environmental factors, and it seeks to understand and address these factors in a comprehensive and integrated way.
The strengths perspective also emphasizes the importance of collaboration and partnership in achieving positive outcomes. Rather than imposing solutions from the outside, this approach seeks to engage individuals and communities in the process of identifying and addressing their own needs and goals. By working together, individuals and communities are able to build on their own strengths and capacities and develop solutions that are tailored to their unique circumstances.
Overall, the strengths perspective is a valuable approach to social work that promotes a positive and empowering view of individuals and communities, takes a holistic and collaborative approach to problem-solving, and recognizes the inherent strengths and capabilities of people. By focusing on building on the strengths of individuals and communities, this approach has the potential to create lasting and meaningful change.
California v. Carney, No. 83
Carney proceeded to plead no contest, to the charges, and the superior court judge placed him on probation for three years. Felton; and for the State of Minnesota et al. The DEA agents, based on uncontradicted evidence that respondent was distributing a controlled substance from the vehicle, had abundant probable cause to enter and search the vehicle. The California Supreme Court held that the expectations of privacy in a motor home are more like those in a dwelling than in an automobile because the primary function of motor homes is not to provide transportation but to "provide the occupant with living quarters. Dombrowski, supra, a sealed package in a car trunk, Ross, supra, a closed compartment under the dashboard, Chambers v.
At a preliminary hearing, he moved to suppress the evidence discovered in the motor home. At the agents' request, the youth returned to the motor home and knocked on the door; respondent stepped out. Two State Supreme Courts have upheld the warrantless search of mobile homes in transit, notwithstanding a claim of heightened privacy interests. Estreicher Sexton, New York University Supreme Court Project, A Managerial Theory of the Supreme Court's Responsibilities 1984 to be published in 59 N. Horowitz, and Kathleen A. As we explained in South Dakota v. The motor home in this case, however, was designed to accommodate a breadth of ordinary everyday living.
Carney's motion was denied by the magistrate. The views of the lower courts on a particular legal issue provide the Supreme Court with a means of identifying significant rulings as well as an experimental base and a set of doctrinal materials with which to fashion sound binding law. In United States v. In our increasingly mobile society, many vehicles used for transportation can be and are being used not only for transportation but for shelter, i. The Magistrate denied the motion, upholding the initial search as a justifiable search for other persons, and the subsequent search as a routine inventory search. The California Court of Appeal affirmed.
The agents identified themselves as law enforcement officers. One agent, suspicious of the association between the car and the motor home, returned to the motor home, which had moved in the interim, and arrested its occupants. Аnswеr Тhе Suрrеmе Соurt оf thе Unіtеd Stаtеs Suрrеmе Соurt hеld thаt thе роlісе dіd nоt nееd а sеаrсh wаrrаnt bеfоrе sеаrсhіng thе mоtоr hоmе. Even in cases where an automobile was not immediately mobile, the lesser expectation of privacy resulting from its use as a readily mobile vehicle justified application of the vehicular exception. This last category differs from a federal court's invalidation of state action in that a structural justification for intervention is generally missing, given the absence of vertical federalism difficulties and the built-in assurance that state courts functioning under significant political constraints are not likely to invalidate state action lightly, even on federal grounds. At the agents' request, the youth returned to the motor home and knocked on the door; respondent stepped out.
I On May 31, 1979, Drug Enforcement Agency Agent Robert Williams watched respondent, Charles Carney, approach a youth in downtown San Diego. After his motion to suppress the evidence discovered in the motor home was denied, respondent was convicted in California Superior Court on a plea of nolo contendere. As we have noted herein, the burden is on the People to establish that a warrantless search was justified under an exception to the warrant requirement. First, the vehicle is readily mobile, and, second, there is a reduced expectation of privacy stemming from the pervasive regulation of vehicles capable of traveling on highways. The Superior Court also rejected the claim, holding that there was probable cause to arrest respondent, that the search of the motor home was authorized under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, and that the motor home itself could be seized without a warrant as an instrumentality of the crime.
We granted certiorari, 465 U. Like the automobile in Carroll, respondent's motor home was readily mobile. Lewis, South Dakota v. Respondent's argument is clearly foreclosed by our opinion in Michigan v. The automobile exception has been developed to ameliorate the practical problems associated with the search of vehicles that have been stopped on the streets or public highways because there was probable cause to believe they were transporting contraband.
Held: The warrantless search of respondent's motor home did not violate the Fourth Amendment. By promoting the Supreme Court of the United States as the High Magistrate for every warrantless search and seizure, this practice has burdened the argument docket with cases presenting fact-bound errors of minimal significance. Moreover, the principle of percolation encourages the lower courts to act as responsible agents in the process of development of national law. Cusanelli, per curiam two camper trucks , cert. There is no reason to believe that trained officers could not make similar distinctions between different vehicles, especially when state vehicle laws already require them to do so.
United States, 267 U. As we explained in South Dakota v. And these motor-vehicle records are traditionally public and easily accessi. Carney, Deputy Attorneys General. In sum, a person's expectations of privacy in personal luggage are substantially greater than in an automobile.
People v. Carney (1983) :: :: Supreme Court of California Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: US Law :: Justia
Irrespective of docket capacity, the Court should not be compelled to intervene to eradicate disuniformity when further percolation or experimentation is desirable. The Magistrate denied the motion, upholding the initial search as a justifiable search for other persons, and the subsequent search as a routine inventory search. There are, of course, exceptions to the general rule that a warrant must be secured before a search is undertaken; one is the so-called "automobile exception" at issue in this case. The police did not obtain a warrant for the arrest and subsequent search. They are almost infinitely variable in size, shape, design, access, and visibility.
It was one that a magistrate could have authorized if presented with the facts. Agent Williams took Carney into custody and took possession of the motor home. Much of the Court's "burdensome" workload is a product of its own aggressiveness in this area. But more than past practice and the structure of the judicial system supports a policy of awaiting percolation before Supreme Court intervention. United States— no alerted criminal bent on flight, no fleeting opportunity on an open highway after a hazardous chase, no contraband or stolen goods or weapons, no confederates waiting to move the evidence, not even the inconvenience of a special police detail to guard the immobilized automobile.
