First of all this case shows us the circumstances, when a police officer has the right to detain an individual without a search warrant. R. v. Clayton is an excellent example of how public safety is a police officer’s main priority whether it means for them to be following the common law or violating it to protect the public. The officer received a call from a person who was in high danger of being in an environment where one could get killed. The police officers took no time to get to the location and block every possible exit (in this case 2) outside of the area described by the caller. This goes to show the seriousness of a situation when prohibited handguns a brought in a public place.
Law enforcement agents are should behave to a standard that is greater than the average civilian. Police brutality comes from an abuse of power granted to the police. Police brutality is often drawn on by overreaction in certain situations drawn on by panic. Police using excessive force in the United States is a crucial dilemma and must be stopped. The regulation of the carrying of firearms reducing the movement of guns would obviously make police officers less nervous, regardless of the color of their skin and that of their interlocutor.
If a civilian’s rights are violated they may be allowed to have protection through state and federal laws, which means the person whose rights were violated are being protected by the government. One of the main reason for civil rights laws is to protect civilians from government abuse. Even though the police officer went too far with a civilian, the police officer cannot be sued. The civilian still has recourse through federal law. Retired police officer David Couper talks to Dr. Greg Gelembiuk, one who gathers data from police reports, “Sometimes I hear the argument that raising the bar on police use of deadly force will somehow put more police officers in physical jeopardy.
I would agree with exclusionary rule, searches are easy to get permission from most defendants. They believe that if you give the right for a cop to search his home the cop will think that the person has nothing to hide but most of the times they will be wrong. A good example is that if an officer walks up to you or if he asks to talk you, you have the right to refuse and you can walk away. But if you toss something at him, he now has the right to stop you and will be used as illegal to
The duty of any criminal prosecutor is to seek justice. A conviction is the end of justice being served prior to sentencing; however justice cannot be served if an innocent person is found guilty. Even though the prosecutor(s) are there to represent the public and has the duty to aggressively pursue offenders for violations of state and federal laws, they shall never lose sight or their own moral compass of their main purpose is to find the truth. In the pursuit of truth, the United States Supreme Court has developed or made rulings in reference to several principles of conduct which have to be followed by all prosecutors to assure that the accused person(s) are allowed the proper procedures and due process of the law granted by the 14th Amendment. In the 1963 ruling in Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court ruled that any government state or federal has the duty to disclose to a defendant and his counsel any exculpatory information or evidence in its possession.
Should non-violent drug offender go to prison? Can you imagine how tragic our society would be if the laws were not enforced and maintained? All laws are put into place to protect people from harm, and shouldn’t be overlooked. If we make concessions for non-violent drug offenders then we are saying “it’s acceptable to break the law”. You must know the "nonviolent" offenders populating our prisons are not college students caught with dime bags.
Even the justice system believes, as if they shouldn’t be convicted. “The legal system doesn’t like second guessing police officers because they know the job is hard and violent and they have to keep bad guys off the streets ” ( Stinson para. 3). For a regular person convicted of a crime they are more harshly faced then police who gets a free pass. Instead of taking responsibility of the situation, they claim they did not do anything even when there is clear evidence.
The safety of the community is crucial and attempting to deam stop and frisk as unconstitutional limits law enforcement. There is much controversy on how it can target a certain group or race but I believe the goal of any police is to deter crime when implementing stop and frisk. I believe stop and frisk can help reduce crimes and eliminate potential crime in a city, neighborhood, or street. Boyette, C., & Martinez, M. (2013). Court blocks ruling against NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy.
Drug testing could save money by removing drug users from receiving unnecessary financial help. The underlining pro of mandatory drug testing is it will potentially terminate the families who abuse the system. Drug testing could influence the lower class to stay off drugs.
As a result of public shaming being a more effective punishment, criminals are less likely to repeat the offense. Public shaming could result in a criminal to have a traumatic experience. Unlike other forms of punishment, public shaming allows for a criminal to truly feel what they did was wrong and it “can be a strong motivator for good behavior” (Diana Kwon). A criminal could be sentenced to 4-8 years of jail time and remain unchanged, but with public shaming the criminal receives publicity that is “so unpleasant that it qualifies as punishment” (Greg Beato). Because of this, Some people would argue that with public shaming a punishment is extended beyond the sentence.
1 Kurt was arrested for the noise ordinance and possession of illegal and drug paraphernalia. Any search needs to be with a warrant. The fourth Amendment “the right of the people to be secure in their person against unreasonable searches and seizures…. but upon probable issue.” The Ex Post Facto “is kind law that is used after an act is committed to make it illegal even it was legal when done.” In the case of Weeks V US 232 U.S. 383 the supreme court addressed this issue. The Fourth Amendment “…protect citizens against warrantless searches of homes and papers and effects.” The officer Vidal has all right to arrest Kurt since he got the warrant, at same time when no one is presented or o one home the officer needs to wait or came back in other time, but he got in and found the marijuana and other drug.
However was that search constitutional? The use of the thermal imager violated DLK’s fourth amendment right. Even though DLK’s acts were illegal, the process of arresting him violated his 4th amendment right due to the fact that the imager goes enhances the eyes ability, the evidence was not disappearing, and the scanning reveals details that can only be found by going in a given house. The first reason DLK’s fourth amendment right is infringed is due to the fact that the thermal imager goes heightens the eyes ability. Document D states “Thermal imaging is extrasensory and permits the police to “see” what is invisible to the naked eye.”If the use of technology goes heightens the body 's natural ability it will require citizens to take severe measures to protect privacy, and will crumble the promise of privacy in the home insured by the fourth amendment.
•Explain what the amendment says (in plain English) – Search and seizure: the fourth amendment. This amendment prohibits officers and active members of the law to unlawfully search or enter a home or school without a search warrant; and even with a warrant you can only search where evidence might be found. If you are looking for a stolen car, you cannot check the kitchen cabinets the car won’t be there. If an area is improperly searched and something is found that cannot incriminate anyone, and is not allowed to be displayed in the court of law. •Explore what issues made it important for lawmakers in the Early Republic--important enough to add this amendment to the Constitution.
First to protect that person from financial, emotional and social repercussions. Second is to prevent the government from using the resources to convict innocent people. Double Jeopardy only protects individuals when they are being prosecuted for the same crime. In the Fifth Amendment it explains that double jeopardy is, “No person shall, be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Double jeopardy has been
Justifying the FLQ by enforcing the War Measures Act was not necessary because the basic rights of people were violated in the process, as it gave law enforcement the right to search, seize, and arrest anybody without sound reasoning, doing more harm than good. Yes, the FLQ was unpredictable, dangerous, and uncontrollable, but the situation did not needed to be handled the way it was, as it invaded the privacy of citizens, and took away their basic rights. The Front de Libération du Québec kidnapped two government officials, carried out many bombings, and caused incidents resulting in injuries or even death, showing terrorist-like characteristics, put lots of pressure on Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. He introduced the War Measures Act to