The first case I choose is the Birchfield vs North Dakota case. This case deals with criminalization which allows the police to search a person for the protection of the police and to protect evidence. They argue the criminalization of breath test and blood test because it falls under the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment protects the people from unlawful searches and the cops to enter your home without a warrant. The states argue that if a detainee agrees to take a breathalyzer test it does not lie under the fourth amendment because it does not invade privacy vs a blood test which invades humans privacy. Hence a human does not bleed constantly as one constantly breaths. Air is natural and not owned by a human so it is allowed to have a warrantless breath test to be used as evidence. The court concluded that if the police want to criminalize someone for refusing to take a blood test they MUST have a warrant.
In this case, I believe that it is indeed an invasion of privacy to obtain one's blood and use it against someone if they did not consent to have blood drawn or to use it against them because they refuse to give a sample. Cops are easily turning things around to their benefit and although I do not agree with drinking and driving I do not think it is okay to force someone to draw blood.
The second case, Friedrich cs CTA is about non-union public employees paying union fees and how many teachers in particularly wish to not pay union fees because they are capable of negotiating their own wages, ect. This is where Abood vs Detroit Board of Education comes in which allows public employees to have to pay for union fees because the first amendment does not prevent "agency shop". Agency shop is where the union requires one to pay fees because they are negotiating your pay and represent the employer. This is required to prevent unions to not hire the future employee because they are not in the union. From my understanding, the case is still open and it is still in process.
My opinion of the case is that I do not think its fair to make public workers pay a fee for something they do want. My aunt is a teacher and has told me the union does take a big chunk of their paycheck for this. I do think the union does protect its workers and can sometimes provide beneficial results. However, if the employee wants to negotiate their own salary and is willing to take the reproductions because no one is there to help them go ahead.
agree or disagree explain
Recently Asked Questions
- Please refer to the attachment to answer this question. This question was created from ENGR 220 Sample Final Exam.
- Look ahead 50 years. Which important factors in international politics today are likely to erode? Which are likely to remain most salient?
- I am currently trying to code a FIFO tax calculator in Java and I need some help. It is due in 6 hours and I am stuck