of needing government aid (Player 2014). The fourth amendment of the Constitution states that there is no legal search without prior suspicion. Forcing drug tests without first evidence of necessity, some would argue infringes on these individuals’ rights. Abuse of the system unfortunately occurs very often. People who use the money they receive on things not necessary for their families constitutes as abusing their aid.
Yes, education about guns would be good but for example, all most everyone knows what drugs, smoking, alcohol does to one but that does not stop them. Some readers could argue that strict gun control laws do not work in Mexico, and will not work in the United States. However, these are two different countries and citizens, what might not work there might work wonderfully here. Some many think gun control laws such as background checks and micro-stamping are an invasion of privacy.
THIS COURT SHOULD REJECT THE FOURTEENTH CIRCUIT’S TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES APPROACH AND INSTEAD APPLY A BRIGHT LINE STANDARD OF REVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN AUTHORIZED DRIVER OF A RENTAL CAR HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH The Fourteenth Circuit Court of Appeals improperly applied the totality of the circumstances approach in determining that Respondent Larry Nightingale has standing to assert a Fourth Amendment challenge to the search of the rental vehicle he was driving at the time of the traffic stop checkpoint. The Fourth Amendment requires that the one who is making the challenge of the legality of a search to prove that he was personally the victim of an invasion of privacy. Rakas v Illinois, 439 U.S. 128,
However, the public will deem the search excessive use of force on the accused performed by the RCMP officer. This search would increase public outrage regarding excessive use of police powers as they believe the search could have performed in a less intrusive mean. Furthermore, the “throat hold” should not be performed on anyone especially females as it can result in health complications (Atherley & Hickman, 2014). However, it is necessary to note that the “throat hold” is a common practice used by the RCMP drug squad to prevent drug traffickers from destroying evidence. This practice is not illegal as it is used to prevent the swallowing of drugs that may be in the accused mouth that will aid in substantiating the charge.
Another recent court case that remarkably challenges the Fourth Amendment is, Riley v. California. The case covered the right of officers to obtain information from cellular devices. The case ended with the need for warrants to be issued to legally search cellphones. There are court cases that will always go on fighting these rights constantly due to error or sheer ignorance, but the natural rights of citizens
The article “Alberta Court of Appeal strikes down part of drunk driving law” analyzes the striking down of a section of the province 's Traffic Safety Act that allows immediate and compulsory suspension for anyone charged with impaired driving. Alberta 's highest court has ruled that the current law violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it ignores the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial before any punishment is imposed. The majority decision found the license suspension practice goes against the charter, as it assumes that every driver who is charged with an alcohol related offense is a danger. Under the current system, an accused impaired driver will have less suspended driving time (a difference
It was as calm as the ocean, until a gun was fired and it turned to chaos. There are many viewpoints in the world. Some that are not so extreme and some that really need to be taken seriously. This paper is talking about gun control. “Gun control refers to an all encompassing term that can be linked to the specific laws and regulations enforced by the government restricting firearms as well as the safety measures such as safety components or trigger locks used for firearms and guns.”
On one side people say the federal government's involvement in gun laws would infringe upon people’s second amendment rights. On the other side, people say the government should act. In the case, in increasing gun laws the federal government should act. Since the beginning of the United States the choice of gun law has been left to the states and because of this many states have lackadaisical about implementing gun laws. Currently, Idaho and Montana don’t have any of the seven regulations stated above.
In the 1980 's legitimate pressure including police quests was an immediate consequence of the war on medications battle. Officers were urged to stop and seize or look suspicious vehicles to put an end on medication trafficking (Harns, 1998). Be that as it may, setting this forceful methodology into impact had numerous negative results. One issue was that it put police on a slim line with the established laws. To nothing unexpected, practically no information evaluating how frequently police quests fall outside protected laws exist.
The case starts off by Officer Gung Ho being on foot patrol during the day shift. He receives a call from dispatch about possible drug sales occurring on Main Street. Officer Ho sees three individuals standing on the corner. Officer Ho approaches them and asks what they are doing. Dan, one of the individuals, and another begin to walk away leaving the third person, Junkie Jane.
On July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed and The United States of America declared itself a separate and independent nation. On June 21, 1788 the United States Constitution was made official, replacing the Articles of Confederation. Since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended several times in order to better apply to current times and situations the Founding Fathers could not have predicted. Despite all the changes the Constitution has gone through, its core principles remain.
The Fourth Amendment was created in response to the British practice of issuing a general warrant—warrants that were not limited in scope. The ultimate check that the Amendment places on law enforcement is one of “reasonableness.” This creates two broad categories of searches: searches that would be unreasonable without a warrant and searches that do not require a warrant. For example, warrants are not relevant in the context of school administration. However, warrants have historically always been required in the course of ordinary law enforcement.”
On May 23, 1957, police officers showed up to a house in Cleveland and demanded to be let inside. They believed a man who was recently involved in a bombing was hiding inside. Dollree Mapp, the woman who lived in the home refused to let them in. Ms. Mapp explained to the officers that she needed to see a search warrant before letting them enter the home. They were unable to provide one, so they left.