The ethical rule demands that “a lawyer shall not reveal information to the representation of the client.” The rule ensures that the information that is exchanged by the attorney and client is confidential and that it’s not presented in court or to anyone else. The issue that arises is how a lawyer can represent the client fairly when a notice
Initially, the Supreme Court made it clear in Spaziano v. Florida, that the constitution does not require the death sentence to be imposed by a jury. 468 U.S. 447, 460 (1984). A few years later, in 1989, this Court decided Hildwin v. Florida. 490 U.S. 638, 640. Hildwin reaffirms what Spaziano held, “Accordingly, the Sixth Amendment does not require that the specific findings authorizing the imposition of the sentence of death be made by the jury.” Id at 640-41.
• Do not drive through an intersection on a red light. • Do not discard trash on private property. Unless the substantive law in question is of a criminal nature, only a preponderance of evidence is required for a decision to be made. A criminal requires evidence so that the final decision, whether by judge or jury,
United States. In this case, a man was prosecuted for illegal alcohol sales using evidence obtained by wiretapping a phone in his home. In the ruling of this case, the Supreme Court decided that since no physical home intrusion was committed, the question of telephone wiretapping is not one that is within the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s protection . Chief Justice Taft said in the opinion, “The amendment itself shows that the search is to be of material things—the person, the house, his papers or his effects… Since the evidence was a conversation and no entry was made into Olmstead’s home, there was therefore no violation of his rights against unreasonable search and seizure6.” The case was 5-4, and in one of the dissenting opinions, Justice Brandeis offered a progressive interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and an uncannily accurate prediction of the future: “The progress of science in furnishing the Government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wire-tapping… [The government] will be enabled to expose a jury to the most intimate occurrences of the home .” Justice Brandeis later went on to write an article called “The Right to Privacy” in which he asserted that “the right to be let alone” was integral to the American citizen’s quality of life . The argument that Brandeis makes against technological surveillance of citizens follows a certain line of logic: “property” encompasses both physical and intangible possessions, in the same way that other protections are not physical but real all the same, such as protection from assault or nuisance6.
“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, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” In the 1928 supreme court case, Olmstead v. United States, the court reviewed whether the use of wiretapped private telephone conversations, obtained by federal agents without judicial approval and later on used as evidence, was a violation of the defendant’s rights provided by both the fourth and fifth Amendments. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that neither the fourth amendment nor the fifth amendment rights of the defendant were violated and this case was later overruled by Katz v. United States.In the 1967 supreme court case, Katz v. United States, the court discussed the nature of the "right to privacy" and the legal definition of a "search". The court 's ruling redefined previous interpretations of the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the fourth amendment to count immaterial intrusion with technology as a search, overruling Olmstead v. United States. Katz extended fourth amendment protection to all areas where a person has a "reasonable expectation of
The side of this debate that supports less strict criteria for warrantless search of the digital information of cell phones is law enforcement, which is made up of various entities that track American citizen’s data to keep the country safe. Government lawyers and supports of warrantless cell phone searches argue that “searching a cell phone is no different than search other items commonly found on a person at the time of arrest.” In addition, they point out that prohibiting these searches would hurt prosecutors’ chances of proving guilt in drug trafficking cases because of the widespread use of cell phones by drug dealers in order to move their products. At surface level it seems that the Court has just required police to get warrants before checking cell phones, but the ruling could lead to questions about the NSA’s capacity to conduct warrantless search on American’s data. Government institutions, primarily the NSA, have used “section 215 of the Patriot Act” to analyze American’s phone data, but this ruling could show that the Court is attempting to better protect the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens by stopping
Transparency in Law Enforcement. Retrieved from: https://www.policemisconduct.net/explainers/transparency-in-law-enforcement/ NCLS(2016). Computer rime Statues. Retrieved from: http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/computer-hacking-and-unauthorized-access-laws.aspx Newman L(2015)Federal Judge Says Law Enforcement Can’t Make You Hand Over Your Smartphone Passcode. Retrieved from: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/09/25/court_rules_that_defendants_don_t_have_to_provide_smartphone_passcodes.html Linshi J (2014).
The police could search your cellphone without a warrant before June 25, 2014, while you were under lawful arrest, prosecutors could use the evidence against you. Warrentless cellphone searches incident to arrest were legal in California prior to June 2014. Example: In 2013, Paul is arrested on a traffic violation. Police search his mobile phone (without a warrant) at the time of his arrest. They find child pornography images among his digital photos.
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
Aguilar did not give Abrego any details of how or where Vargas stole the items. Abrego advised me that he filed a warrant for Vargas’ arrest on a probation violation for not reporting. Abrego advised he is not capable of booking evidence or conducting an investigation of the evidence found in Vargas’ bedroom. Abrego requested the Pasadena Police Department conduct an investigation to determine if the above evidence is in fact stolen property. Abrego will file another violation against Vargas’ if the evidence is determined to be