amend. XIV, sec. 1). If the public were not able to videotape any of the police brutality then there would be nothing to ensure the innocence of many. If there is no evidence then the less likely the public would believe an African American would be innocent of any crime.
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
The contempt power, then, is generally not intended to affirmatively cloak litigants with any substantive rights, but rather to assist the courts in exercising its necessary functions. Id. In recognition of this principle, we perceive no basis for this Court’s jurisdiction to consider Father’s appeal of the denial of his petition for contempt because he “was not held in contempt, however closely related and intertwined it is with other orders or judgments” in this case. Pack Shack, Inc., supra, 371 Md. at 260.
Wesby was a very interesting case, that was just recently decided. I agree with the judges that for one there was no lawful arrest made and but I strongly disagree that there was not probable cause to make an arrest and lastly, I agree that the officers do have qualified immunity in this case. The officers made an unlawful arrest because they lacked evidence to charge the party goers with unlawful arrest. This is because the party goers did not know they were not supposed to be there at that time. The Court case states that Peaches was the supposed tenant of the house and gave the party goers permission to be there and that is why they were all there.
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.
I say this because the police officers did not have to go to the extreme of using excessive force in order for Armstrong to cooperate with them. They used the only thing that was beneficial to them and it was to bring out the taser. Even though the officers were still granted qualified immunity, what about the fact of Armstrong being killed. It seemed as if the police officers were in the wrong, no one took the time to care about what happened to Armstrong. There are some other people who were in situations that involved police officers using excessive force.
In executing the powers however, the law-making subsystem did not accept to afford the police uncontrolled discretion. Instead, while digressing from the accepted test of reasonable suspicion, s44 and its predecessor stop and search were shaped provisional to mandatory, statutorily proscribed process prior to being adopted. This Government described this process as a means to provide operational flexibility, paired with clear safeguards avoiding misuse. However, interpretation of this procedure by the police aided the use of the powers disregarding the level of oversight through which the legislature validated through their expansive and highly discretionary drafting. This disparity, between the legislature and the police arising from different subsystem expectations regarding the nature of powers, which in turn diminished the effectiveness of the statutory safeguards against misuse.
There have been prominent theorists whom have supported the idea that morality and law should be distinct including, H.L.A Hart and Ronald Dworkin. Harts theory was first introduced through his publication of "The Concept of Law" in 1961. The theory consists of primary and secondary rules; as identified by Hard. He considers his primary rules to be all the rules we follow or our rules of conduct. In contrast to that, he created his secondary rules, which are considerably more detailed.
Another direct exception the exclusionary rule is the good-faith exception. When a court allows a good-faith exception, they allow evidence that was technically obtained illegally, via an invalid search warrant, to be used in court if an officer seized said evidence in “good-faith”. If an officer acquired evidence in “good-faith,” this means that he or she was not aware of the invalid-ness of the search warrant. In contrast, if an officer is aware of the invalid search warrant, but still proceeds to attain evidence, the good-faith exception will not be applied and the evidence will not be allowed in
Jordan’s crime was only a minor violation and therefore did not warrant such excessive force from the officer. Secondary, concerning your statement that Jordan did not show respect toward the police officer, I might add that no law legally requires civilians