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. The Fourth Amendment was created for safety and privacy reasons, but has deterred the efficacy of law-enforcement; needing a search warrant makes gathering evidence harder, police investigations have been delayed, and the Exclusionary Rule causes some investigations to be inadmissible.
On May 25, 2010 Casey Anthony 's lawyer states to the court and jury that Caylee was unintentionally drowned in the swimming pool of their home , and that Casey and her father had cover it up. The prosecution presented that Casey Anthony did research on chloroform at her home computer but her mother Cindy Anthony 's asserted that it was her that made the searches that implicated her daughter but the records showed that Cindy Anthony was at work when these searches were done.
Australia believes that your rights are protected if you’re on the wrong and right side of the law. However, it wasn’t in the Dietrich v. The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 case.
In all areas of law reasonableness tends to play a fundamental role including reasonably foreseeability, the reasonable man, beyond reasonable doubt and reasonable force to name a few. The concept of reasonableness in public decision making is no different and has developed, expanded and retracted in various jurisdictions over the past century. In public decision making, reasonableness particularly relates to judicial review, and the actions, events or otherwise which lead a public body to arrive at a particular decision rather the decision itself. It is of great importance that reasonableness is applied to public bodies in order to control the exercise of power and to prevent arbitrary and unfair decisions. In this essay, we will examine
1. Facts: Explain the essential facts of the case. Tell the story of the case.
Although the courts have sometimes recognized a value in consistency,they have nevertheless made it clear that consistency is not a paramount constitutional value in structure of the criminal justice system.The law tolerates inconsistent verdicts.22 The Supreme Court has held that if a single fact finder, whether jury or judge, returns a verdict that is internally inconsistent, the conviction may stand.23 For example, the jury may acquit a defendant of a narcotics offense, but it may convict the defendant of using the telephone to commit that offense. The conviction is inconsistent with the acquittal but will stand despite that inconsistency. Similarly, if either a single fact finder or separate fact finders acquit one defendant of a crime
The law review article I chose was written by a Law Professor regarding police claims on self-defense. The author talks about Zimmerman’s murder trial and how the judge refused to allow prosecution to argue that the neighborhood watch volunteer racially profiled Martin. Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder for shooting a 17-year-old, Trayvon Martin. The state of Florida filed an affidavit of probable cause stating that Zimmerman profiled and confronted Martin and shot him to death when Martin didn’t commit any crimes. Zimmerman claims he shot Martin in self-defense. The trial judge refused to instruct the jury that aggressors lose their right to self-defense unless they meet certain conditions.
The exclusionary rule was first established in the case of Weeks v. United States in 1914. During the trial, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence obtained by the law enforcement officer was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and will be inadmissible in federal courts. This rule later became effective in the state courts in 1961 due to the unlawful search of Mrs. Mapp’s house in the case of Mapp v. Ohio. As a result of this case, Mrs. Mapp was convicted for possession of obscene materials but later argued that the law enforcement officer could not use the materials in the trial because they were obtained without a warrant. Although the exclusionary rule is not an independent constitutional right, it serves many purposes such as aiding in the deterrence of police misconduct and providing solutions to defendants whose
8.I do think so. Lets say that we have fibers that have transferred from a
wensby argues that the balance of power in 17th century New Spain is maintained through each individual’s involvement in society rather than a top bottom power structure. Power alone was not what upheld justice because each social level held the capacity to exercise power that was contingent on the complex set of social conventions of 17th century New Spain. The law cannot be separated from the social norms that were the members of New Spain valued. The legal system itself can attest to this argument, as the courts specifically the tribunal made rulings based social norms instead of solely the law. The supposed powerless did hold sway in their outcome, as we see with the cases Owensby presents. The legal system does not follow a precedent instead it deals with each case on the individual level. It
Background: Appeal by accused of court decision to admit evidence of firearm despite there being a violation of protected Charter rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b), which was dismissed by trial judge finding no Charter breach had occurred.
Throughout the 13th and 14th centuries, the judges in England created the ‘Common Law’ which was a system based on strict rules and precedents. However, this dependence on judicial precedents resulted in Common Law becoming rigid and restrictive. Hence, litigants who were unable to obtain a remedy or who found the result produced under the Common Law System harsh, petitioned to the King. Due to a large number of petitions made to the King, the duty to deal with these petitions was then transferred to the Lord Chancellor who was known as the ‘Keeper of the King’s conscience’. Eventually, a special court known as the Court of Chancery was set up by the King. The holdings of this court depended upon the conscience and morality of the Lord Chancellor unlike the rulings of the Common Law Courts. The law that was established and enforced in the Court of Chancery resulted in the emergence of what is now known as ‘Equity’. Over time, Equity became more popular as it had greater flexibility and was more approachable than Common Law. However, conflicts arose when the two courts started to overlap with each other. One of the main areas of conflict was in relation to the issue of injunctions and this came to a head in the Earl of Oxford’s Case. In the case, the Common Law justices objected to the Chancellor issuing an injunction in order to prevent
The precedent is a decided legal case, which is used as a basis for deciding later similar cases. The English Law system is a legal system where the precedent has a great weight. This law system can be subdivided into two main interrelated branches: statute (or statutory) law and common law. Statute is an Act of Parliament, which starts its life as a bill, goes through the parliament, receives royal assent and becomes law.  Common law works in a different way, the judges rather than the Parliament make common law or ‘judge-made law’. Considering criminal and civil cases, the judges take decisions based on the stare decisis principle (Latin “to stand by things decided”, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent ), deliver rulings and create precedents, thus applying the law to real life situations. Therefore, the value of the precedent is very high in the English Common Law system.
Every decision you make is essentially a committee act. Members chime in, options are weighed, and eventually a single proposal for action is approved by consensus. The committee, of course, is the densely knit society of neurons in your head. And “approved by consensus” is really just a delicate way of saying that the opposition was
1. The very first disadvantage of this doctrine is the fact that not all the judges will have the same conclusion on a matter; therefore increasing the complexity of a case. Just like human beings differ from each other physically, they also differ mentally. Different judges will have different interpretation of cases; hence, they may bind a single case with various precedents making it more difficult to pass a judgment. In this type of situation even competent judges may find it complicated to decide on the ‘ratio decidendi’. Nevertheless, there are a lot of case laws and deciding which case law best appropriates to a case is not always an easy task, as it is time consuming and very stressful to find the most suitable precedent. Therefore, not only the doctrine of judicial precedent has the disadvantage of being complex, while the judges are discussing which case law to apply to a specific case, justice is at the same time being delayed.