harlan logo
Friend of the Court – Amicus Brief Badge

As the lawyer for Joelis Jardines, I feel that the use of drug-detecting dogs is necessary in some cases, but in the my client’s case the use of a drug-detecting dog was used for a “sniff test” without my clients knowledge or a search warrant. A detective should have gotten a search warrant after the test, for the search of my client’s home after the test was made. This is a violation of the fourth amendment, which gives the right to my client to be secure in persons, house, and property. This amendment does not just restrict to drug-detecting dogs, but also thermal-imaging device like in the Kyllo v. United States case in 2001. In 2001 the case of Kyllo v. United States is a clear example of how the police are cutting conners and not following the rules that they are suppose to uphold. Another example is when the FBI used a device that recorded conversations on a local pay phone in the Katz v. United States case in 1967. These are a couple of other devices that police use but are illegal. These devices can be very useful, but they need to follow the same guidelines as everything else. If used properly then it wouldn’t be an issue of violating the forth amendment, but in my case with Joelis, this drug-detecting dog was used illegally and should not be used against my client in this case.

Friend of the Court

I do not understand why the Federal Aviation Administration has to listen, and surveillance journalists, attorneys, labor unions, or other public-interest groups. I think that it is a little silly. Everyone deserves a little privacy. The government itself is secretive and does not even let the people of the country know what is going on half of the time. The surveillance under the FAA may help to observe things that could help and keep people safe from threats or other dangers, but they don’t need to go to a great extreme. I think that some surveillance is fine if there is proven to be an issue with the journalists, labor unions, international human rights organizations, and so forth. But, if they do not have any reason to look in on the groups or persons job, then why are they doing it.
The Federal Aviation Administration’s mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world. The thing about there mission is that with there plan, people get hurt and lose many things or opportunities. For example, Journalist may not get to speak with someone who has the scoop on something they were trying to break because the FAA is, or could be listening in on the conversation. This might cause the client to not tell the news he/she has to the reporter because they do not want to be identified or tracked, but remain secretive. Another would be the international human rights organization. My first question would be why is the FAA trying to look in on an organization that is only trying to help others in need of freedom? The FAA should allow these types of groups to be able to help other countries with very little surveillance. They are trying to make this world better so why not let them.
Even tho a lot of people see the bad side of the Federal Aviation Administration, they do also protect us. They are trying to make our world and country better. The FAA is trying to make everyday life the safest it can be. They stopped the Dreamliner aircraft from taking flight because of mechanical difficulties. This itself could of resulted in a huge problem. The Federal Aviation Administration has just protected many from the dangers that they could of faced before them. Another good thing that the FAA does, is that it tries to find and track any potential sign of terrorism. These efforts do more than what we can see looking in from the out side of what they do everyday. I am really not sure what to think on the Federal Aviation Administration. I am appreciative that they are trying to keep my life, and the lives of many others around me safe. I also don’t like the fact that they do not trust other people and organizations who have the right to be trusted. They have shown that they are helping people, and if they don’t I personally think that the FAA will continue being sued by many groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Global Fund for Women

Friend of the Court, Amicus Brief Badge_Clayton Ehlers_EolsonClass

Hello, I am the director of admissions at a public university. I am going to talk to you about  our recent problems. When most people think about diversity they think about race. when I think about Diversity I think abut all of the other things. I look more many different diverse things in my students. Here are a few examples. First there is of course a difference in sex it would be better to have a balanced student body of males and females. Second of all there is a religious stand point. When it comes to getting applicants into your college you need to think about what kind of religions they are in to.   There are certain colleges that are christian colleges that have a church on campus for worship a couple times a week. You have to consider how someone would be treated if  they are in another religion. And lastly there are people with less money and you need to take into account that not everyone has just enough money for college and you need to decide wether to accept them and help them or tell them to make some money.

Fisher Case

Stephen R. Covey once said, “Strength lies in differences, not in similarities.” As the director of admissions of a public university, I know the importance of diversity among college students, and the benefits each student receives solely because of the diversity they are given. Once college students move onto the transition of an employee at a workplace, diversity will automatically be surrounding them. This is one of the many reasons diversity is important as a college student while living on campus. Diversity doesn’t only include race and gender. Diversity involves personality, hobbies, religious and political views, and so much more.
As a high school student, teenagers begin to mature and start to think about their future. Where they want to attend college, what they want to major in, and who they want to become. While they are making the transition on their own, teachers and family members also prepare teenagers for what comes after high school. The real world. Not everything is going to go exactly the way you plan, and a student starts to realize they may not always get what they want. This begins with being accepted into the college they hope to attend in the fall after they have graduated. While some first year students are accepted because they meet qualifications and everything necessary to be accepted, others aren’t accepted into the college they’re striving for because of various reasons. Moving on and choosing another college is a choice many students make, but some like Abigail Fisher decide the college’s decision is unjust and they make a stand. I do admire Fisher’s persistence and determination, but I don’t believe the University of Texas didn’t accept Fisher because of discrimination.

Response To: Friend to the Court Fisher vs. University of Texas

Diversity is part of the society today. It affects our daily lives. People come from all over. One of your co-workers may be from Texas, another from China, and maybe one from Mexico. Diversity has been around for ages. In the 1950’s and 1960’s we segregated whites from blacks. In the past we have been more judgmental, but in time we have become more open about diversity and have been more accepting.
I believe that diversity is so important because it helps to promote different cultures and personalities. We all should be acceptant of one another. With diversity, we can include every race. We should not segregate different ethnic groups from one another. With different races and ethnic groups we get to become more knowledgable about each other. We are all humans and no one is better than another.
With this case I feel that the judges will rule against her. She has no proven fact that she wasn’t accepted because of her race. There could be other multiple reasons why she didn’t get chosen. Perhaps the university didn’t like her resume or maybe her ACT or SAT scores weren’t what they wanted.
I believe that we should set a certain amount of students that can each be selected every year. If we set a limit of 10% of every race gets accepted it doesn’t mean that if you don’t selected you aren’t good enough. They can re-apply its just with a set amount of number we can only accept so few.

Response To: Friend of The Court Fisher v. University of Texas

As Director of Admission at University of Texas, I believe in meeting the expectations of those who wish to attend our campus. Due to Affirmative Action, the university is diversifying campus to fulfill the new standards of society. We not only want to be a racially diverse campus, but also by gender, sexuality, political views, religious views, and economic backgrounds.
As our country continues to become the “Melting Pot of The World,” race, nationality, and ethnicity is becoming less prominent of an issue. While the university does ask for race on the application for admissions, it is not the only way of determining and distinguishing diversity on campus. Admissions accepts the top ten percent of a graduated class whether they are racially diverse or not. That in itself could take care of a wide range in race.
We want to ensure that campus is diverse and students are open to most all walks of life. Race is not the only way we ensure diversity. Many aspects of a student are taken into account on acceptance. The University of Texas would like to recognize that their campus is a new experience for many students and would like to continue that reputation.

Friend of the Court

Founded in 1978, Global Rights is a human rights capacity-building organization working in partnership with local activists in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to promote and protect the rights of marginalized populations. Through broad-based technical assistance and training, they strengthen partners to document and expose human rights abuses, conduct community outreach and mobilization, advocate for legal and policy reform, and provide legal and paralegal services.The work of Global Rights is motivated by their vision of a just society worldwide built on the fundamental principles of human rights. The critical forces for achieving deep-rooted and sustainable change in societies come from within each nation. Human rights cultures are built from the ground up. They  focus on strategies that are essential to promoting, protecting, and fulfilling human rights such as documenting and exposing violations, conducting community education and mobilization, advocating legal and policy reform, using the courts on behalf of disadvantaged populations, and engaging the international community, including the United Nations and regional bodies. Global Rights is governed by a sixteen-member board of directors comprising senior lawyers, journalists, and academics and operated by a 60-member staff, two-thirds of whom work outside the United States. They have many files on the places they work in and the rights that need to be fixed. They don’t want to be recorded because they have information about cases that are waiting to be solved and if the information got into the wrong hands they would be in trouble and might be stopped and they need to fight for their cause.
Human Right Watch is one of the world’s leading independent organizations in effort to help defend and protect human rights. They hold people oppressors accountable for their crimes. They target advocacy to build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. They also challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights laws.
Human Rights Watch is a great opportunity for people who have been put into prison, for example, for a mass amount of time for no apparent reason to help them get out of the situation. These people are out there to help but if they are trying to keep people out of danger, the government can not barge in because of the privacy rules. The government may think that they are not giving away evidence but things sometimes slip through the cracks. This one time could end up costing someone’s life. The Human Rights Watch was made special for this reason so that information would not be let out for people to hear about. The American government does not need to know what is going on in someone’s life unless they are asked to. The information the Human Rights Watch is dealing with may not even be from the United States which is another reason government should not have any ties to it. Every person has a right to keep their information to themselves. The people working for Human Rights Watch were chosen for a reason, the government needs to let them do their job.

Friend of the Court

Abigail Fisher should not be denied acceptance because of her racial background, even if a more diverse student population on campus is something that the university is seeking. The diversity that the University of Texas needs is more religious affiliations, economic backgrounds, and sexual orientations. The university wants the students to interact with students of different backgrounds, but that still does not permit them the right to discriminate against Abigail Fisher and deny her acceptance for being white. That is just unconstitutional.

Amicus Brief on the case of Florida v. Jardines

In the case of  Florida v. Jardines, the Florida police are following the laws set by the Florida Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.  The Florida police were doing their job.  The drug sniffing dog was not against the Fourth Amendment right because the police had not been inside off the house.  A search warrant is usually issued if police are looking for evidence inside of the home.  In this case there was not a problem whether or not the police had a search warrant because they had one when they enter the home.  If dogs are allowed to sniff in peoples yards or other people are allowed to walk up to someones door, then why can’t the police and a drug dog be outside a home.  Anyone can have suspicion of the objects inside of a home but they do not need a warrant to go up to a house.  Police are no different, they followed the laws set by their government.  Jardines has no Constitutional proof that the dog handler did anything unconstitutional.  The Florida police were undergoing an investigation and the fact that a drug sniffing dog was what they needed then it is constitutional for that dog to be on the property.  Nothing was done that went against the fourth amendment.

Amicus brief for the University of Texas

In the case of Fisher v. University of Texas, the University is right to want a diverse student body.  As the director of  an university I understand how difficult excepting and not excepting students is.  To make the campus we run the best it can be with a diverse group of students.  My institution believes that having a diverse group of students whether it is race, religion, or ethical background will grow our students and campus perspective on life.   Having different races on our campus allows for more culture into the lives of our students.  Having student with different backgrounds also allows for different religious beliefs and economic background.  Students are so used to what they were raised with and when they get to college they should be able to see different ways people believe and live.  College is all about spreading your wings and learning this that you would not have learned at a college that has every student from the same background.  The University of Texas should continue to promote diversity in the college but also be fair to all applicants.  The rule of accepting all the students who are in the top 10% of their class is a great rule.  You know you will get the students who strive for excellence in their school work.  However, they need to also have students of different backgrounds because they could be granting students who never thought they could attend an excellent university, a chance at a better life.  The University of Texas is right for wanting diversity in their institution.