By using a thermal imager to access information about the inside of DLK’s home, the government technically performed a search. What they were able to see was not the same as what the general public was able to see. The government defended their actions saying that they ‘scanned a surface exposed to public view.’ (Doc E) However, the inside of DLK’s home was not exposed to the public, and he was not aware that the government w in possession of technology that was able to exceed normal human senses. According to Justice Scalia, the device was ‘not in general public use.’ (Doc F), Along with that, the areas the government scanned were not all in public view, as the inside of DLK’s home was generally inaccessible to the public. There are only four times when a search can be performed without a warrant: hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss to evidence, and permission of the suspect.
After reviewing Justice Brennan’s dissenting opinion, I cannot agree with his argument that a conducting a protective sweep surpasses the purpose of the Terry v. Ohio decision. Justice Brennan agreed that a protective sweep was not a full-blown search, but it was much more intrusive than a limited pat down for weapons or the frisk of an automobile (Sifferlen, 1991). Also, Justice Brennan also stated he believed officers’ should possess probable cause to initiate a protective sweep of a home (Sifferlen, 1991). The Terry v. Ohio decision permits law enforcement officers to perform a pat down of the outer clothing, when the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the subject he or she is dealing with, is armed and dangerous (Hall, 2015). The main purpose of Terry v. Ohio decision is to locate weapons that may be used to hurt the
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Many believe this, but columnist Nicholas Kristof, author of “Our Blind Spot about Guns,” published in 2014 in the New York Times, disagrees. A rhetorical analysis should consist of: logos, pathos, and ethos. Kristof’s use of logos is strong due to the amount of facts and statistics he offers to his audience, but he fails to strongly use pathos and ethos, due to the lack of these elements Kristof’s argument is weakened.
Several states, for example, “lift restrictions on nonconsensual blood testing if law enforcement officers first obtain a search warrant or similar court order.” In addition, “a majority of States either place significant restrictions on when police officers may obtain a blood sample despite a suspect 's refusal (often limiting testing to cases involving an accident resulting in death or serious bodily injury) or prohibit nonconsensual blood tests altogether.” For these, the portion of N.D.C.C. §39-20-01 authorizing warrantless and nonconsensual blood tests cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. This is true, a fortiori, because N.D.C.C. §39-20-1 provides law enforcement with less intrusive means by which to establish probable cause that a motorist is driving while
Other forms of disfranchisement, including the disfranchisement of criminals, remain controversial. Since the early 1990s, all but three states prohibited imprisoned offenders from voting. Thirty-five states disfranchise offenders on probation or parole, and fourteen disfranchise ex-offenders for life. Because a disproportionate share of convicted criminals are non-white, some have argued that such laws constitute a racially discriminatory voting barrier that is as pernicious as poll taxes and literacy tests. Many state criminal disfranchisement laws date back to the Reconstruction era, and such laws were often targeted at offenses for which African Americans were disproportionately convicted.
Daniel Webster Professor of Health and Policy Management at John Hopkins University suggested making data on gun sellers safety records publicly available. This would encourage firearms dealers to only sell weapons so individuals they do not believe will commit a crime. In the state of Florida, and many other states mental health checks are not required when purchasing a firearm ("Possession of Firearms by People with Mental Illness"). Regardless of their mental state, if the dealer themselves choose to sell an obviously mentally ill person a firearm, they can. In many states, they do not require any live fire training before firing a firearm (Mascia, Jennifer).
The first principle is focused on the protection of civilian; states must not use civilians as the object of attack and must not use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets. In application of that second principle, States have limited freedom of choice of means in the weapons they use in order to avoid causing unnecessary suffering. The court states that the rule and principle of humanitarian were invented before nuclear weapons were created. However, the court does not deny that the establish the rule and law of humanitarian in armed conflict does not apply to nuclear weapon, but it seems significant that it does not apply to new weaponry and upload in the present proceeding. The principle of neutrality It is similar to the fundamental character of humanitarian principle that any type of weapons might be used to all international armed conflict.
Constitutionally, states have that right but in the 1915 Supreme Court case Truax vs. Raich, the court concluded that states do not have the right to impose onerous conditions on immigrants, like the Syrians(4). Refugees have been given multiple rights and luxuries in coming to America. People just need to open their minds and hearts to
The general public is okay that some criminals go free if it means police will not violate the 4th amendment. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained illegally shall not be used in the court of law. It also states any evidence found because of the piece of illegal evidence is invalid. The exclusionary rule was first introduced in federal courts with the case Weeks V USA 1919. The rule did not apply to the states until 1961 in Maps V Ohio when they stated it was arrogant to have a rule that only applies to federal courts.
Where the weapons were obtained in the sandy hook shooting and the Orlando shooting were dramatically different. Lanza took the weapons from his mother who owned them legally, but Lanza was unable to have firearms because of his mental illness. Mateen was cleared by the federal background check even though the FBI did some monitoring on him. His radical beliefs caught the eye of the federal government, but someone 's religion can not be used to stip individuals of their rights. Lastly he explains that, “cultural beliefs are significantly related to people’s opinions about gun control, but the strongest, most consistent predictors of people’s gun control preferences are their political beliefs and affiliations,” (Wozniak 2).