District of Columbia v. Wesby 583 U.S.___ (2018) Procedural HISTORY The district court said the police officers did not have the right to make an arrest because they were invited to someone and lacked evidence to prove that she didn’t have permission to be there. They said that the police had no knowledge of such. Party goers also had to know they were not supposed to be there. The court of appeals upheld both decisions of the district courts. It made it to the Court of Appeals because of writ of certiorari Key Issues If the police made false arrest?
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects all citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures from all government officials. However, the Fourth Amendment is not an assurance against all search and seizures, only those that are deemed unreasonable by the law. According to the Legal Information institute an unreasonable search is any search conducted by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and/or “without probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is present.” () If any evidence is found during an illegal search and seizure then the evidence is
Alice in Second Wave Feminism. I feel like Alice fits into second wave feminism due to her considering getting an abortion. Abortion was illegal at the time this book was written so Alice was technically not allowed to pursue an abortion. She would of had to go to a place that was not very pleasing at all and was very unsanitary and unsafe. Alice was also sexually assault even though she was on drugs no one cared that she did not have control of her body.
The Supreme Court task was to conclude if prohibiting videos showing animal cruelty breaches the First Amendment. Issues Under the First Amendment, can the government prohibit the portrayals of animal cruelty? If the First Amendment protects the portrayal of animal cruelty, then does Section 48 violates the Defendant’s First Amendment rights? The Court knows that the government usually cannot censor someone’s speech because of its message’s content, but there is also a long-standing consensus against animal cruelty. For this case, the Court must find a counterpoise with these interests, and yet find a deliverance that will decide if the Congress can prohibit certain kinds of speech.
Thankfully, once research is conducted most community leaders correctly realize that BSL won’t solve the problems they face with dangerous dogs… Read entire text here. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) (click above for direct link to all position statements) Position Statement on Breed-Specific Legislation (excerpt–please visit the link for lengthy background materials, references, sample breed-neutral laws, and discussion) It is, therefore, the ASPCA’s position to oppose any state or local law to regulate or ban dogs based on breed. The ASPCA recognizes that dangerous dogs pose a community problem requiring serious attention. However, in light of the absence of scientific data indicating the efficacy of breed-specific laws, and the unfair and inhumane targeting of responsible pet guardians and their dogs that inevitably results when these laws are enacted, the ASPCA instead favors effective enforcement of a combination of breed-neutral laws that hold reckless dog guardians accountable for their dogs’ aggressive
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.
The policy problem that I have identified is Georgia’s Racial Profiling Law HB 87. The problem with the policy is that it makes every citizen other than Caucasian, a target in the eyes of the police. This policy allows the local and state police the authority to ask anyone with Hispanic decent or with an accent the right to ask for identification or immigration card. This procedure is done to see if the individual is legal the issue also doesn’t give officers the proper training to identify those individuals who are residing in Georgia illegally. As a result, if a crime is committed in the Hispanic or foreign communities, no one will be willing to help the authorities because they fear being prosecuted themselves.
Due to the fact that his parents refused to have James drug tested, he was suspended from sports for the season. The constitution takes a big role in this case. The Acton family sued on the premise that drug testing their child was an invasion of privacy and illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. I feel drug testing should be legal and allowed
In such cases, it is immaterial whether the attacker has committed a serious felony, a misdemeanor, or any crime at all” (Katzenbach et al., 1967). Although this appears to be a sound example of a good policy set forth in the report, it is too opened ended and appears to go against other detailed guidelines that the report states, such as the outlines that specifically say when a weapon can and cannot be used. As we know, many times the usage of a firearm is unwarranted by police (Katzenbach et al., 1967) therefore, can the idea stated above, which outlines that police are supposed to make a choice about what kind of force they should make, undoubtedly in the heat of moment, truly offer protection if we know that the decision often made is unwarranted? Through the Report’s guideline no one can be safe because of the variation and differing degrees of safety that it
The side of this debate that supports less strict criteria for warrantless search of the digital information of cell phones is law enforcement, which is made up of various entities that track American citizen’s data to keep the country safe. Government lawyers and supports of warrantless cell phone searches argue that “searching a cell phone is no different than search other items commonly found on a person at the time of arrest.” In addition, they point out that prohibiting these searches would hurt prosecutors’ chances of proving guilt in drug trafficking cases because of the widespread use of cell phones by drug dealers in order to move their products. At surface level it seems that the Court has just required police to get warrants before checking cell phones, but the ruling could lead to questions about the NSA’s capacity to conduct warrantless search on American’s data. Government institutions, primarily the NSA, have used “section 215 of the Patriot Act” to analyze American’s phone data, but this ruling could show that the Court is attempting to better protect the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens by stopping