Macdonald case, while still being processed, has set up an important precedent on safe searches and the interpretation of police powers in Canada. In the end, the court decided that the officer made a reasonable search when he barged in to disarm the suspect. The decision was made because the officer suspected that Macdonald was armed and dangerous to the public. The central theme of this case and analysis is whether the Officer infringed on Macdonald’s rights thus causing harm in regards to Liberal Legalism. We can conclude that the decision made in R v. Macdonald does fit Liberal Legalism but not that perfectly.
The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).
Encinia orders her to "get out of the car", and, when she repeatedly refuses to exit, he tells her she is under arrest. Repeatedly asking why she was under arrest, and the officer responded by saying , "I am giving you a lawful order. Refusing to leave her car, stating she is not under arrest as she is unaware of the reason and not obliged to. The officer then proceed to opens her car door and tells her more than a dozen times to get out of the car before trying to pull her out. After struggling, he draws his Taser and points it at Bland, shouting "I will light you up!
But the court in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte used a different test for consent searches and it’s the voluntariness test or totality of the circumstances. In this test knowledge to refuse consent is a factor but it is not a requirement the main requirement is on police coercion, this means that the officer did not force Alcala to search the vehicle. In this case Officer Rand asked Alicia to search the vehicle and he said sure this shows that did not use police coercion, because he voluntarily answer and submitted. It would have been coercion if Alcala said “no” and then Rand started saying things like “you’ve got nothing to hide let me search the car”. So the consent was voluntary because Alcala was not coercion into allowing the search by Officer
1. When Stan Johnson told Trooper Cummings to come in he gave him permission to enter his home and the opportunity to begin a conversation. I do not believe that the police acted in an improper manner in this case. Stan identified himself, invited the officer into his home, and proceeced to distribute cocaine to the undercover cop. I agree with the court decision to not dismiss the case because they were able to prevent the misuse and intent to sell drugs to other people.
I immediately observed Bishop’s left hand was covered in blood at which time I asked him how he hurt his hand. Bishop stated that he had been arguing with his girlfriend after she nearly drove into another vehicle at which time he became upset at her, so he punched the window seal. I then spoke with victim Brandon Pendle a cashier at Chic-Fil-A who provided me with a sworn written statement. Pendle stated he was serving a customer at the drive thru window, when he noticed “A black male with no shirt walked up to the [window and] started starring funny at me.” According to Pendle he instructed Bishop to leave at which time Bishop grabbed his arm and said “Give me your watch”, several times. Pendle again instructed Bishop to leave, while Bishop continued asking for the watch.
Fields felt that his First Amendment rights had been violated. He appealed his case to the court of appeals. He argued that it was okay to falsify his claims, because he they were about him. He didn’t harm anyone in lying about himself. The court of appeals overturned his conviction because they thought the Stole Valor Act was unnecessary.
In the article, no evidence was given that the officers did not follow protocol, as they did not enter the resident’s home without permission or a warrant. Police are allowed to enter a home under the circumstances of someone resisting arrest. (www.qld.gov.au/law/crime-and-police/being-arrested-and-police-custody/being-searched/) In this case, the article does not go into much about the public disturbance that John Felix committed, but usually disturbing the peace does not warrant arrest. Depending on how severe John was being a public nuisance, he could have been arrested to serve jail time. In that case, the officers would have been able to enter his home and arrest him.
According to Miller this is appealing to personal experience, King first hand experiences this when he gets arrested. He strongly feels that it is unjust to put a man in jail just to deny him his freedom of peaceful protest. The whites know and as well as himself knows that he is being wrongly accuse and he doesn 't deserve this unjustness. As well as appealing to ethos his character in this paragraph establishes that he is one of knowledge, he analyzes and argues in a manner that is striking. An example is when king puts into play that he agrees with laws but then says he will not stand for a law that is wrongly used to deny him his
In the case, the Court did not see sufficient evidence to support the claim that the police violated the respondent’s Fourth Amendment right, prior to entering the resident. There is no evidence of threats or demands made by the police officers, that would insinuate the officer did anything wrong. Because the police in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency, the Court held that the exigency did in fact justify the warrantless search. The officers re-acted upon suspicion and training (Vile, n.d.). Another good example of exigent circumstances, the United States Supreme Court clarified the definition of searches under the trespass doctrine in 1967.
The Supreme Court cited the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to justify their ruling. The Fourth Amendment provides an individual protection against unreasonable search and seizure, but it itself was not binding enough to negate the use of illicitly acquired evidence in a criminal case. Though, when combined with the Fifth Amendment, an Amendment that provides protection from self-incrimination, the use of this type of evidence is considered unconditional. (Laws) The Supreme Court previously ruled not to allow illegally confiscated evidence into federal trials, in the case of Weeks v. the United States. In my opinion, it should be mandatory that every state uphold these same standards, that are set foreword by the Constitution and its amendments.
Constitution protects the individual rights of its citizens. In this case, even if Ohio had its own laws it was shown that the supreme law has more weight in some cases than the state. Every individual citizen of the United States has the same rights, and they cannot be violated in any aspect. In the case of Mapp v Ohio the officers violated the privacy of Mapp and made a search to a private property without the proper documentation in this case the search warrant. Even if the officers did not cause any harm to any of the individuals living at the property, the evidence found should not be considered as valid to present it at a trial.
Holmes may be the only support that I have in the argument. While he has nothing to say in defense of my appeal to a higher law, he is able to give me some pragmatic support. The whole purpose of the law is to be able to predict the outcomes of our legal system so that we can avoid the full force of the state coming down on our heads. In this respect I am safe. When I go through the light, because no one is there to see me, there is no danger of the force of the state coming to bear on my situation.
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.
Hamilton equates Zenger 's defense with "the cause of liberty" in an attempt to stir the jury’s sense of justice. By stating that "a bad precedent in one government is soon set up for an authority in another," he makes it clear that what the jurors choose here today (to support freedom of speech or deny it) could impact the laws of all the states. This is further supported by Hamilton stating "it may, in its consequence, affect every freeman that lives under a British government on the main [land] of America." He also tells the jurors that should they protect Zenger 's freedoms, they would have "the love and esteem of your fellow citizens...every man who prefers freedom to a life of slavery will bless and honor you, as men who have baffled