Pros And Cons Of Fourth Amendment

“While body camera evidence has already played a role in the disciplining of a few officers nationally, advocates are warning that the technology will not be a magic bullet for behavior or resolution of legal disputes.” Meanwhile the body-warn cameras are known for having evidentiary value. They are useful for resolution of citizen complaints and also yield evidence for criminal prosecution. Additionally body cameras are admirable for those who are training to be a police officer, so they could watch how police- citizens encounters. Although on the other hand this body worn camera can also have limitations for legal complications.

No one exceeds the law so much that they are exempt from punishment for committing a crime. The law and justice systems are here to keep us safe and someone could use their “mental illness” to escape incarceration and put others in danger. It would be unwise to let a gang leader go free from a life sentence in prison, because he was ruled insane, and he could still endanger someone. The Insanity Defense is rarely used in the United States and it would be wise to get rid of it altogether so, it can’t be misused by criminals looking for a way to escape imprisonment. The Insanity Defense should not be able to excuse someone for fair punishment for their

The document “Crime and Punishment in the Elizabethan Era” also points out that the law was flexible and could be applied differently based on the situation. When a person was convicted of treason, they were not always executed immediately. Some were inhumanely tortured for more information to see if they were working with others, despite the obvious lack of morality in doing this, it worked. However, on the other hand, the Elizabethan Law did have at least some moral sense to it as people some were spared from torture, and even execution in certain circumstances. When pregnant women were sentenced to death they could be spared for their the lives of their unborn children.

The exclusionary rule is a lawful principle that the United States use, which expresses that the confirmation that was powerfully utilized by the police can 't be utilized in a criminal trial. The motivation behind why this is done it’s for the security of the established rights. In addition, the exclusionary rule states that in the Fifth Amendment no one "should be denied of life, freedom, or property without due procedure of law." The exclusionary rule additionally expresses that in the Fourth Amendment it is intended to shield residents from unlawful pursuits and seizures. It also applies to the infringement of the Sixth Amendment, which ensures the privilege to counsel.

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

The biggest benefit of the 4th amendment is that it deters searches. The law enforcement will not be able to search you without transgressing the law. Thus your car will not be probed if you were to be pulled over by the police, without your sanction. Furthermore your personal items: backpack, house, or phone are not sanctioned to be confiscated without a warrant or your sanction. Consequently denizens feel very confident because there privacy is forfended.

Courts have determined that police are allotted broad discretion as to the techniques and tactics they are allowed to engage in when interrogating a suspect, with the exception of threats of violence and promises of leniency. However, an increasingly prevalent problem arises that the courts have yet to respond to by consensus, and that is the problem of when non-public details that become a part of a suspect’s confession originate from the interrogating detectives and not the suspect themselves. The current system fails to apply important developments in the management of errors and quality control that results in miscarriages of justice. Wrongful convictions remains one of the most serious miscarriages of justice, violating the most fundamental

Although the NSA can also successfully catch terrorists by accessing private data, using only investigators will protect the privacy of the citizens of the United States from being violated, cost the government less money and let people feel more secure without having the feeling of being watched. Moreover, opposers argue that it is too difficult to process the enormous amount of information that the NSA accesses every day, so it is not reasonable to assume that this information actually helps prevent attacks in action. In addition, even when the NSA finally detects a suspicious act, it would still not be easy to catch an actual crime, as there are so many behaviours and situations that could solicit attention that the investigators can not decide which one requires investigators in the field. And that is the reason why the NSA falsely detained innocent citizens with wrong accusations. Some also believe that spying on other nations has caused tensions between the US and many countries around the world.

The Fourth Amendment contains some points that could be used for malicious purposes and technically still be Constitutional. For example, law enforcement officer can use a subpoena instead of a warrant, according to Your Digital Trail: Does the Fourth Amendment Protect Us? (2) Subpoenas are easier to get since they do not require a judge to determine if there is probable cause, yet there are more ways a law enforcement officer could cheat to get someone to remove his/her rights. According to Wex Legal Dictionary | The Fourth Amendment, if the person convicted confesses or agrees to nullify the effects of the Fourth Amendment, it cannot protect them.

They are put into place to avoid problems that are not necessarily against the law but are not behaviors people should be participating in. Ethical standards for law enforcement officials can include not taking any bribes or money from criminals who want to get out of a situation. This can include not taking money for traffic violations or drug convictions. While this behavior is illegal, it definitely also constitutes as unethical. The biggest reason lies behind the fact that if more police officers exhibit this type of behavior, then it will be more common for criminals to commit these crimes since nobody is being punished for

The RCMP officers had reasonable grounds beyond mere suspicion to conduct the search without a warrant as prescribed by the NCA section 10 (1); therefore, they were within the parameters of the law to conduct the search of the accused (R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R.

It’s not something that should be protected against a nosy onlooker. There is no connection between the lack of a search warrant and the constitutional freedom against involuntary disclosure. The weapon would have been just as unlawful and involuntary if there was a search warrant. The warrant does not advance the idea that the defendant will be covered against disclosing his own crime. Actually, the warrant is used to urge him to disclose it.

Point 1. The collected evidence ought to be suppressed for failure to issue Miranda warnings during a custodial interrogation. Miranda warnings were made mandatory by the Supreme Court to protect the citizenry from hard police interrogation tactics and forced confessions. However, when a private citizen becomes the interrogator outside, the application of Miranda becomes less strict. 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.

Justifying the FLQ by enforcing the War Measures Act was not necessary because the basic rights of people were violated in the process, as it gave law enforcement the right to search, seize, and arrest anybody without sound reasoning, doing more harm than good. Yes, the FLQ was unpredictable, dangerous, and uncontrollable, but the situation did not needed to be handled the way it was, as it invaded the privacy of citizens, and took away their basic rights. The Front de Libération du Québec kidnapped two government officials, carried out many bombings, and caused incidents resulting in injuries or even death, showing terrorist-like characteristics, put lots of pressure on Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. He introduced the War Measures Act to

The third amendment protects us from housing soldiers during war or peace. Unless you allow them to go into your home. The fourth amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. The government must have probable cause cause or a good reason to search you.