The Majority of the court 's decision includes McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. The court had to decide in this case whether the seriousness of an offence or knowing that one might be a threat to public safety can be a justification to stop anyone without having solid evidence against them. The court stated that both Mr. Clayton and Mr. Farmer were guilty of carrying concealed weapons in a public place. The police had the right to search them even though their car didn’t match the description described by the 911 caller because the officers have to be consistent with their duty towards public safety and act in accordance to the seriousness of the
MacIntyre without any evidence made Marshall the main suspect and accepted only evidence that supported that theory. MacIntyre also failed to locate the two men Marshall described in his testimony and the police failed to use investigative facilities and services made available by the RCMP. The police failed to record the eyewitness testimonies. Reports were made that provided evidence of Marshall’s innocence but the officer who it was reported to failed to bring it forward to the Crown and defence counsel’s attention. The Crown Prosecutor failed to interview the key eyewitnesses.
From what the film shows, there were no witnesses so the officers had no basis of arresting Oscar and his friends. They definitely did not have a reason to brutally arrest them and proceed to draw weapons. It was definitely a classic case of prejudgment, racism and law enforcements power
To understand why religious freedom has become so controversial, it helps to know what constitutes as religious freedom. The First Amendment states that there will be no law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” (First Amendment). This means that the government cannot establish anything considered an official national religion, and they cannot bar the practice of any religion within the United States as long as there is no danger “to others or to society at large” (Boston). Originally written to ensure that the religious persecution in Europe didn’t come to the United States, the First Amendment is “a major reason why the U.S. has managed to avoid a lot of the religious conflicts that have torn so many other nations apart” (“Your Right to Religious Freedom”). That doesn’t mean that the U.S. has been exempt from religious conflict, however, and there are many
What is more, the language employed in this argument is relatively neutral in that they are not emotionally charged. In addition, this argument is cogent in deductive logic. British constitutional democracy follows the rule of laws, but there are no constitutional devices for abolishing the monarchy, so it is illegal to abolish the monarchy; therefore, the UK should not abolish the monarchy. In short, the deductive logic used in this argument is convincing for the audience. However, there is no positive proof provided by the poster to justify the premise that there are no constitutional devices for abolishing the monarchy.
A terry stop is when an officer detains a person because they believe they could be involved in a crime. There does not have to be proven evidence for the arrest. If the person is under suspicion of being armed and dangerous, their outer garments may be searched. 17. What is meant by “totality of the circumstances.” What is it used for?
The most important weakness of this policy is that it offers grounds for dirty cops to utilize force illegally to pursue selfish personal agendas that are not in the interests of the public. A police officer can use deadly force and allege that the use of force was necessary when indeed it was not and since there are no effective ways to measure such allegations such officers will end up going scot free. The police officers are supposed to be each other’s keepers and prevent their colleagues from misusing the authority given by the policy while officers who break the law can be charged in court. However, this is not guarantee that such authority will not be used illegally. Another weakness is that cases of mistaken identity can lead to harm to innocent civilians who are suspected of being
Not only does the state of Florida not restrict who can buy a gun, but it is illegal for them to keep a database of all the people who own guns, according to USA today. This needs to change. There is nothing protecting the citizens of Florida from tragedies like the shooting at Majority Stoneman Douglas High School from occurring again. People need to realize that this is not an either gun or mental health issue. It is the fact that gun control laws do not stop the mentally ill from obtaining a dangerous firearm.
In this case, there was no information availed to the magistrate so as to make independent and reliable conclusion as to the prudence of the unidentified police informant. b) The seizure of other contraband items found on the person of Raul outside the
The public will view the throat hold as the excessive use of force; however, the search to acquire the evidence to substantiate the charge, could not have been obtained in a less intrusive manner. The case R. v. Hamill,  1 S.C.R. 301, saw the throat hold being used by RCMP officer to secure the accused while a search was conducted on the apartment. This provides evidence that throat hold performed by the officer is a common method used against individuals suspected of involvement in drug trafficking (R. v. Hamill,  1 S.C.R. 301).
The fact that Boyd was a police officer was not the reason MacDonald’s accusation of a Charter breach was turned down. The decision was made with logic and reason, with no regards to either person’s position in society. The judge did not automatically take the side of the police officer; he looked at all the facts of the case which reflects the need for neutrality and equality in liberalism. The harm principle can be applied to this case as well. Sergeant Boyd pushed into MacDonald’s apartment in an attempt to discover if he or anyone else was in danger.
In Katz v. United States, Charles Kats used a public telephone to phone-in illegal gambling bets. However, while placing these bets, Katz did not realize that the government was listening to his conversation. The FBI could listen to Katz place illegal bets because the agency tapped that specific phone. Following the recorded conversations, Katz was arrested and immediately taken into custody by the FBI. In response to the arrest, Charles Katz said the police had violated his rights as an American citizen; he claimed the FBI disrupted his right of privacy.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of the personal residences of citizens, and also outlines the right to privacy that is awarded to citizens of the United States. The fourth amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things being seized. Even after the ratification of the Fourth Amendment, it was permissible for evidence that was seized and collected without a warrant and in violation of the Fourth Amendment to be admissible in court. This remained the common practice until 1914. In the Supreme Court’s decision to Weeks v. United States, what is known as the exclusionary rule was created; when a conviction that was based on
The Constitution does not restrain a private citizen in the same ways as law enforcement, unless that citizen is acting as an agent of law enforcement. When a private citizen either by his own initiative or at the request of law enforcement gathers evidence with the intent of furthering criminal prosecution, Miranda warnings must be given. A. Mr. Lake was acting as an agent of law enforcement when he questioned Ms. Greene. There is no clear rule for when a private person is acting as an agent of law enforcement. Every instance of agency must be individually examined.