The Fourth Amendment is “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.” In other words, it is against the law for police to search any person without probable cause and an issued warrant. (Cartoon Surveillance) This protects the privacy of the innocent people that may not be considered guilty. However, giving the people a right to a warrant is only giving them an advantage, while the police and the government have a disadvantage. Issuing warrants take away time and privilege for police. Needing a warrant may unable police to some investigations as well.
Even when an illegal arrest occurs does not necessarily mean that all errors will justify invoking the exclusionary rule. The courts have stated that even if the officer’s actions taken were reasonable under the circumstances, which comes under the good faith doctrine, therefore no misconduct needs to be deterred and the exclusionary rule will not apply ("The "Good Faith" Doctrine"). The officer has to prove to the courts that they have the good-faith
Trials shouldn’t be done in secret way from public eyes because how can you call that fair. Libertyfirstfl.org states that the 6th amendment has multiple clauses within it. Speedy Trial Clause, Public Trial Clause, Right to a Jury Trial Clause, Confrontation Clause, Arraignment Clause, Compulsory Process Clause, and Right to Counsel Clause. Right to jury is crucial to having a fair and just trial. It picks random citizens to sit in a trial, they don’t choose people that might know the defendant.
First, the 7th Amendment ensures that citizens have to right to have a court. It also helps us because the common law or civil law court hear their case on the Federal level by a jury. It also helps us by providing a jury trial. For example, in court jury, the case protects and no one can change the factor otherwise it will be re-examined by another court of United States. As well as, a person can’t be a double jeopardy which means if someone commits a crime and the police didn’t find any evidence against them so they can free to go.
This Act’s requirements are retroactive which require offenders convicted of the crimes after a specific date to register. The two people involved in the case were seeking to pronounce the Act void and that it should not apply to them due to it falling under the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I Section 10 on of the United States Constitution. At the conclusion of the case in a 6 to 3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy the court had determined that the Act’s retroactive requirement did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because the Act is considered non-punitive since it was intended as civil means of identifying previous offenders in order to be able to protect the public by making them
The District Court denied relief and found that the counsel made judgment errors in failing to further investigate mitigating evidence, but the respondent 's sentence did not result from any prejudice from any of the counsel’s judgment errors. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the Sixth Amendment provided criminal defendants with a right to counsel who provides "reasonably effective assistance given the totality of the circumstances." The Court of Appeals outlined the standards for judging whether a defense
ISSUE: Should Appellant Jewell have been convicted of possessing a controlled substance despite no positive knowledge of such possession, where Appellant had a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth? RULING: Yes. Trial court conviction was affirmed. Dissent by: KENNEDY,Circuit Judge, with Judges Ely, Hufstedler and Wallace. RATIONALE: The legal premise of the jury instructions was sound.
A. O’Connor v. Donaldson 1975: In this precedent, the supreme court decided that the presence of mental illness alone is not enough to warrant involuntary confinement. If the patient is no longer found dangerous to him/herself or others, there is no justification to continue confinement. Commitment needs to be justified on the basis of mental disease and dangerousness. This precedent is applicable to the case of Mr. Y, because the statement above states dangerousness and mental illness as a basis for justifying continual commitment for Mr. Y. If the preponderance of evidence shows that Mr. Y is dangerous due to his mental disease, then deciding to civilly commit him would meet the requirement of this precedent case.
As such, equality law seeks to remedy a problem through imposing certain injunctions in order to solve a problem. However, one important aspect of the 7th amendment is that it bars the judges from overruling the findings of a jury unless there was such a violation of a common law; hence, in all but a few cases, the ruling of the jury will be regarded as a violation of the 7th amendment. Further, the 7th amendment makes specifications that the jury has to be unanimous in all civil cases. Therefore, in my own view, the 7th amendment is beneficial since it protects people from the rights that are abused by the government. It achieves this by ensuring that the government cannot simply lock people up in jails or prions; hence by doing so it protects the citizens from unnecessary tyranny by the government.
For example, Chapter 113c of Title 18, the Crimes and Criminal Procedure of the US Code makes it a crime for torture to be committed abroad irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender where the alleged offender is present in the US. The provision imposes severe criminal penalties on “whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture.” Jurisdiction over this crime applies whether the alleged offender is a national of the United States, or is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender. (Sec. 2340A.) The first person to be charged under this law, Charles “Chuckie” Taylor, Jr., son of former Liberian president Charles Taylor, was indicted in December 2006 and is currently facing trial in Miami.