Question 1: Folsom v. State of Alabama
Marriage carries certain legal implications with regard to ownership of marital property. In a common-law state, property acquired by one spouse belongs to that spouse alone – unless otherwise indicated by a legal document such as title deed (Laurence, 2019). In a community-law state, becoming legally married means marital property belongs to both spouses (Laurence, 2019). Common property laws and community property laws are used to determine ownership of marital property in marriage, after divorce, or after a spouse’s death. Most states in the United States are common law property states. During a marriage, a spouse has the right to enter the property of his or her marriage partner if they are living together. However, if the spouses are divorced or one of the spouses has moved out, a spouse do not have the right to enter the property of the husband or wife unless he or she has been invited. In the case of Folsom v. States of Alabama, the spouses were physically but not legally separated (Justia, N.d). Since they were in a common-law property state, the husband should not have entered the home without the permission of his wife since she owned the property. The wife wanted her husband out of the house because he was abusive.
The test the court applied was the fact that the spouses were physically but not legally separated and the husband can be guilty of burglary in the case of common law property if his wife does not welcome his presence. Additionally, the husband was abusive as he sexually assaulted his wife. Since the husband posed a threat to the other spouse, the wife had the right to restrict her husband from visiting her house without her permission.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In order to establish privileges similar to those of legal spouses, roommates (boyfriend and girlfriend living together) should hold special legal status. Such relationships should also carry certain legal implications with respect to property ownership. However, it would be challenging to enforce such privileges. This is because these types of relationships lack legal status. In order to establish privileges similar to those of legal spouses, relationships like those of boyfriends and girlfriends and roommates should hold legal status within states.
Question 2: Lewis v. New Orleans & Bousquet v. Arkansas
Confrontational encounters between citizens and law enforcement officers usually result in charges. While some charges are too readily leveled against citizens who may be questioning law enforcement officers for their actions, there are certain instances in which their reactions cross the line. One such example is "fighting words" directed to law enforcement officers. In the case of Lewis v. City of New Orleans, the court charged Mallie Lewis for using “obscene or opprobrious language” to the law enforcement officer (Vile, N.d). Lewis screamed obscenities at a police officer while the officer was carrying out his duties. Justice Brennan reasoned that the prescription of the use of “opprobrious language” does not inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace (Vile, N.d). The court found that it was immaterial to punish the appellant for the words used under a properly limited statue. However, in the case of Bousquet v. Arkansas, the court found the appellant to have used “fighting words” (Court Listener, N.d). The court found that the words uttered by the appellant were likely to incite violence retaliation.
Quality immunity is a doctrine that shields public officers from liability from “fighting words” (Nelson & Walker, 2018) The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects a wide range of expressions. The Supreme Court also prohibits "fighting words." The United States Supreme Court developed the fighting-word doctrine to protect government officials, but the doctrine has been limited after a series of Court decisions (Bitzer, 2009). However, courts ought to look at the full circumstances to determine whether any threatening behavior or conduct accompany the language used.
Courts should not hold law enforcement officers or other government officials to a higher standard than ordinary citizens unless the angry speech is likely to incite violence retaliation from the police officer. An excellent example of a case where the court held police officers to a higher standard is in Martilla v. City of Lynchburg , where the court stated that proper law enforcement officers should exercise a higher degree of restraint when confronted by “fighting words” (Hudson, 2009). Unless any threatening behavior or conduct accompany the angry speech and abusive language used by appellants, public officers should not be treated differently or be held to a higher standard than the appellant.
Question 3: Child Pornography
The Constitution prohibits the provision or soliciting materials that purport to be unprotected child pornography (Pollock, 2015). Speech in the form of an offer to engage in criminal activity (exchange child pornography) should be sufficient enough to establish criminal activity. This is because the individual affirmatively intended to have the other individual commit a crime and may involve forcing or inducing the other individual to commit the crime. Therefore, the individual should be liable for aiding and abetting the crime. Simply giving a speech or asking a person to commit a crime is a crime itself. The answer in question one will still remain the same even if there is no apparent ability to exchange child pornography. This is because if an individual is asking another person to engage in a criminal act, the individuals may be looking for partners or someone capable of committing the criminal act.
References
Bitzer, M. (2009). The First Amendment encyclopedia. [Online]. Retrieved from: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/959/fighting-words . Accessed 12 th September 2019.
Court Listener. (N.d). Bousquet v. State, 548 S.W.2d 125 (Ark. 1977). [Online]. Retrieved from: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1497860/bousquet-v-state/ . Accessed 12 th September 2019.
Justia. (N.d). Folsom v. State, 668 So. 2d 114 (1995). [Online]. Retrieved from: https://law.justia.com/cases/alabama/court-of-appeals-criminal/1995/cr-93-1835-0.html . Accessed 12 th September 2019.
Hudson, D. (2009). Fighting words. [Online]. Retrieved from: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-speech-2/personal-public-expression-overview/fighting-words/ . Accessed 12 th September 2019.
Laurence, B. (2019). Spouse debts in common law states. [Online]. Retrieved from: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/debt-marriage-owe-spouse-debts-29572-2.html . Accessed 12 th September 2019.
Nelson, A., & Walker, C. (2018). A qualified defense of qualified immunity. Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 93 , 1853-1885.
Pollock, J. (2015). Criminal Law. New York; USA. Routledge.
Vile, J. (N.d). Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974). [Online]. Retrieved from: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1588/lewis-v-city-of-new-orleans . Accessed 12 th September 2019.
