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,  1 S.C.R.
I can see the pros and cons of this device. It would be helpful in catching people that are texting and driving however, it is a violation of privacy. The fourth amendment sates that we are free from unreasonable search and seizure however, if you suspect someone is texting that is probable cause. If someone had probable cause that someone was texting then I do not think, it would be unreasonable to run a check. I think this tool could become a great way to prevent drivers from texting.
Maryland v. King was taken to the Supreme Court where the Court of Appeals ruling was reversed, because the judges believed DNA testing was in the legitimate interest of the state and was part of an arrest procedure, so therefore does not require a warrant. Another incident questioned when a warrant was needed during a traffic
The state did prove Stan’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the grounds of substantive criminal law and procedural criminal law. Although they had a credible source the defense called what the security officer said as “rumors”. The state was able to obtain a search
All three courts that the case went through decided that MacDonald’s Charter rights had not been violated by Boyd. This was because Boyd had a justifiable reason to believe MacDonald might be a threat to public safety, and he violated the right as little as possible in that specific situation. This decision does reflect the concept of liberalism in many ways. The fact that Boyd was a police officer was not the reason MacDonald’s accusation of a Charter breach was turned down. The decision was made with logic and reason, with no regards to either person’s position in society.
He dealt with stage regardless of the notice in light of the fact that he trusted the danger of falling was the main risk. The court held that the inability to regard a notice is not contributory carelessness if the harm was the consequence of an alternate wellspring of danger created by the respondent, and the harmed gathering was ignorant of that hazard. Solomon v. Shuell – Plain garments cops were capturing burglary suspects. The decedent thought the suspects were being assaulted and was shot by one of the officers when he left his home with a weapon.
1. Give an example of a mala prohibita crime and describe why it is mala prohibita. An example of a mala prohibita crime would be driving over the speed limit. When people do this they are breaking the law, but they are not doing it in a malicious way; they are not trying to be bad.
the customer should be permitted from buying a firearm unless given permission or permit to do so. Of course, one might be thinking “not all mental illnesses are dangerous!” and that person is absolutely correct. Blaming all mental illnesses is simply wrong, if anything, mental illnesses are the least thing to worry about compared to alcoholics or ones who have problems with controlling anger and own firearms. “Federal laws prohibit the purchase and possession of guns by anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”
While the spread of disease and other detriments are possible in the practice of prostitution, criminalization is a sure way of exacerbating rather than addressing such effects.” Sherry believes that prostitution is not a 'victimless crime' in the sense that no one is necessarily harmed by it is that there are consenting adults involved"(Top
D. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HAVE LESS INTRUSIVE MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL TO DETERMINE IF A MOTORIST IS DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED In Nelson v. City of Irvine, the Ninth Circuit invalidated a strikingly similar law permitting warrantless tests of a motorist’s blood, breath, or urine. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit explained that “[w]hen a DUI arrestee consents to undergo a breath or urine test, the government has available to it an effective alternative to a blood test as a means of obtaining the same evidence.” Furthermore, “breath and urine tests are equally effective as a blood test in determining whether a suspect has violated the DUI law.” Although equally effective, breath and urine tests are far less intrusive than blood tests.
Gun Control Gun control violates the second amendment an it takes away our rights to own and carry firearms. If people carry a concealed gun what are the chances that someone would steal from them, they won’t because they have a way to protect themselves. If the people the steal for money know that no one can have a concealed firearm then it is easy for them to take whatever they want. But if people have a way to protect themselves how much less would be stolen from others that work for what they have.
According to the argument, the author claims that the Prunty County should emulate Butler County to improve the conditions of the road to reduce the traffic addident rate. Unfortunately, the author has to further the argument with addithional evidence before she can legitimately come to the conclusion. To begin with, although the number of accidents has not decreased, it doesn 't necessarily mean that to lower the speed limitation from 55 to 45 miles per hour is of no use at all. Clearly, the author assumes that the number of accidents is equal to the degree of highway safety. However, how severe are these accidents are not mentioned.
In this situation it is not necessary to find out whether the items are lawfully owned. There are situations when items, not contraband at all, may be seized and submitted into evidence. In this case, if the coat had been priced fifty-one dollars rather than fifty dollars, it would have been a lawful arrest because the police officer might apprehend the defendant if a felony had been committed and there was a reasonable cause to think that he did it. In that case, there might
The fourth amendment protects citizens from unlawful search and seizure. In order for a search and seizure to happen the police have to have evidence in order to get a warrant which allows them to search the citizens luggage, house, etc. In some cases the government may go to far, or invade privacy of others, but in this case the government didn’t go to far and this is proven in DLKs case, thermal imager, and heat image. In DLKs case he was taking reasonable expectation of privacy in the activities he was doing in his home.