Tuner Critique Brock Allen Turner was a Stanford University student. However, after a frat party his life and another women’s life changes. Tuner was caught raping a woman who was unconscious behind a dumpster. With two witnesses present in court, Tuner was only sentenced to six months and jail. To many people including myself, felt that the sentence should have been longer.
The appellate court however, determined that he was within the scope of his employment and this cannot be sued personally. Reasoning: FRIEDLANDER, Judge stated he believed the trial court correctly concluded that the allegation of negligence upon which the Bushongs’ action is premised was against a government employee acting within the scope of his employment. Judge Friedlander quoted Ind. Code Ann. § 34-13-3-5(a) prohibits a lawsuit against a public employee for actions committed while the employee was acting within the scope of employment, for his reasoning to dissent or reverse judgement.
Needing a warrant may unable police to some investigations as well. The Fourth Amendment was created for safety and privacy reasons, but has deterred the efficacy of law-enforcement; needing a search warrant makes gathering evidence harder, police investigations have been delayed, and the Exclusionary Rule causes some investigations to be inadmissible. Needing a search warrant made collecting evidence much harder for the government and police. On spot searches are not allowed, or any type of search for that matter, unless there is probable cause.
Yimaj Sherif ENG 1520 Dr. James 20 July 2015 Arresting DNA June 25, 1999 Roger E Carlson sexually assaulted a woman at gunpoint, raping her multiple times; the woman was taken to a hospital where a swab of semen was extracted from her. The woman suffered a traumatic experience and was forced to live with her rapist being out in the world free. It wasn’t until October of 2013 when the sample of DNA that was taken had a match. When Carlson was arrested, a second sample was to be tested to validate the first sample. According to the Indiana state forensic laboratory “in the absence of an identical twin, Roger E. Carlson is the source of the DNA profiles to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.” When crimes are committed there leaves
First, the victim was taken to a hospital for a rape examination and her clothing and bedspread were collected as evidence. The laboratory found sperm evidence in the rape kit, on the victim’s jumpsuit, and on a blanket, which matched Good’s blood type and one-third of the caucasian male population (Haynes: Circuit judge). This shows that there was evidence but not enough evidence to say it was Donald Good. Next, Good was convicted on the spot. Good spent more than seven years in jail for rape and murder has been exonerated because of a tainted testimony from a former State Police chemist.
The rules main goal is to prohibit evidence obtained in violation of a person's constitutional rights from being admissible in court (Siegel 2010). The exclusionary rule may prevent evidence seized in violation of a person's constitutional rights from being admitted into court, an officer who has violated someone's rights could also be sued along with their agency. According to Section 1983 of the U.S. Code an officer could be prosecuted criminally under some circumstances as well (Forsythe n.d.). The case United States v. Leon is notable because due to this case the good faith exception was added to the exclusionary rule. The exemption allows evidence collected in violation of privacy rights as interpreted from the Fourth Amendment to be admitted at trial if police officers acting in good faith relied upon a defective search warrant (Siegel 2010).
In the Davis case, the Court augmented the exception and made the exclusionary guideline inapplicable when police unbiased and sensibly depending on trying to redraft a point of reference. By setting up another special case, the Court made another inquiry for Fourth Amendment law advancement. Laura Collins states, "If and when litigants can challenge unfavorable Fourth Amendment points of reference in criminal cases." Now, criminals have no chance of challenging an unreasonable search below the Supreme Court in the federal court system.
It can have a potentially positive impact on one party, and a neutral impact on the other, such as surveillance as shown under consequentialism. Finally, it can have a positive or neutral effect on one party, and a harmful one on the other, as in the case of identity theft or stalking. Macnish explains: “This [personal gain] might be financial or emotional, but can extend to other reasons. An unethical computer hacker might break into a website to steal credit card numbers which she can then use for her own ends. Alternatively a Peeping Tom might steal up to someone’s window with voyeuristic intent, or an ex-spouse might seek to gain incriminating information in order to secure custody of their child” (Allen, 2008 as cited in Macnish, n.d.).
In July 1984 Jennifer Thompson, a 22-year old white woman, was raped by a black man in her apartment. A man named Ronald Cotton was arrested and identified by Thompson in a line-up and a phot-spread. According to her interview with CBS’s 60 minutes in 1999, Thompson explained how she was confident in her identification. In 1985, Cotton’s conviction of raping Thompson was based largely on her identification. While in prison, two years later, a fellow inmate of Cotton confessed to the rape of Jennifer Thompson.
The aspect of criminal protection is hard to wrap one’s head around, but we have to remember a fundamental concept in the United States justice system, the expression “innocent until proven guilty.” This was first used in the Bill of Rights to ensure all citizens receive a fair trial if they are ever charged with a crime, a principle known as due process of law. This rule can serve to prevent gross injustices, such as convictions made by juries and judges even when no evidence links a defendant to a crime. Another advantage is that you are not required to answer any irrelevant question about your personal life which has nothing to do with the case. Finally,
With this question, privacy v. safety concerns came up. With this concern, The Petitioner, Riley and his lawyers, argued that smart phones simply contain too much personal information to be legally searched by police without a warrant. Many argues that smart phones reveal the most private thoughts of the average American, containing extensive records of the book read, websites visited, and conversations with friends and family of the owner. They also argue that constitutional protections will be surrendered if police can search the smart phone of every American arrested without a warrant. The Petitioner further contend that smart phones are every bit as sophisticated as personal computers and need to be treated as such and can be through of as a window into the owner’s mind.