The first amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” (Bill of Rights). Freedom of speech is a good example of the limitations we have as US citizens because we are not permitted to use that amendment if it affects public safety. For example, we are not allowed to say that we have a bomb in an airplane when it is not true. As long as it does not provoke any other consequences in other people we can use the first amendment. The second amendment works the same way; we have the right to have a gun as long as it does not interfere with public safety,
- cert was granted ISSUE: - Did the FBI violated Katz 4th Amendment Right? (to privacy) HOLDING: - Yes REASONING: - The phone booth should be considered protected when doors are shut but the 4th amend. protects persons not places from unreasonable intrusion. In a public place, a person can have that reasonable expectation (but isn't protected because of plain view) Since the government was electronically listening and recording the conversation, it is constituted as a search & seizure. Under the 4th amend., the absence of a warrant during a search & seizure (they had probable cause as well) evidence should of been inadmissible.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: “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[1] (Constitution, 1789).” b. The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. According to http://criminal.findlaw.com/, in most instances a police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or
Analysis and Application: Legal Rights Afforded to the Accused By Kimberly Fleetwood CJ227: Criminal Procedure January 31, 2012 The police were not required to take any procedural steps even though John had made incriminating statements. If they had made the decision to question him on what he was saying, then they would have been obligated to read him his Miranda Rights. It would seem to me though that the police would not stop him to ask questions. The statements he was making would have surely been admissible in court. The only thing the officers needed to do was to take John’s statement down in their report.
I found it useful when learning and understanding the Exclusionary Rule to reference the below chart (National Paralegal College). It explains how evidence cannot be used if it violates the rights given to us under the United States Constitution (National Paralegal College). What the chart does not show is sometimes evidence that was used to other evidence that linked the suspect to the crime committed could possibly be inadmissible because of the Exclusionary Rule, which means your suspect who may have ultimately committed the crime goes free because the evidence cannot be used against him or
This allows the client and the attorney to communicate openly and ensures that confidentiality is preserved (Natoli, 2013-2014). The exceptions provided in Rule 1.6 cover the potential loss of life, property, and reputation but no provision is made to expressly prevent an innocent person being imprisoned. Massachusetts has interpreted the ABA MRPC and made such a provision. The Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.07 states, “a lawyer may reveal, and to the extent required by Rule 3.3, Rule 4.1(b), or Rule 8.3 must reveal, such information: (1) to prevent the commission of a criminal or fraudulent act that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm, or in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another, or to prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of
You cannot use deadly force against an officer trying to perform their legal duties. The purpose of this law is important because it protects the innocent victim who defends his home or his family against intruders from any criminal prosecution or civil action. We should consider it outrageous to make an innocent person suffer for defending his or her home or family. The defendant has no duty to abandon a place in which they have the right to be. This law is important because if someone feels that their life is being threatened in their own home they must be able to defend themselves.
But it was ten years earlier in case Boyd v. United States which the Exclusionary Rule really found its beginning but the case was thrown out. Definition of the Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule is “The principle based on federal Constitutional Law that evidence illegally seized by law enforcement officers in violation of a suspect’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used against the suspect in a criminal prosecution” (Law, 2005,p.1). The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “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 (Law, Fourth Amendment, 2008,p.1). Purpose and Rationale The rationale behind the Exclusionary Rule is to deter law enforcement officials from obtaining items and information through illegal unconstitutional means. The idea was to hopefully cut down and end law
The fourth amendment prohibits, "unreasonable searches and seizures", and protects citizens' privacy within reasonable measures. Now, how does this tie into modern technology, and should the use of this information be considered a violation of people's constitutional right to privacy? Police should not be able to obtain information stored by personal devices or their carriers, as the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees privacy to the United States citizens. In that case that the authorities were to use information from a person's personal device without a proper warrant, they would be in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment was established in order to protect the privacies of the United States
According to O’Connor (2009) “The USA Patriot Act, for example, violates the First Amendment’s free speech guarantees by barring those who have been subject to search orders from telling anyone about those orders, even in situations where no need for secrecy can be proven. It also authorizes the FBI to investigate citizens who choose to exercise their freedom of speech with no need to prove that any parts of their speech might be labeled illegal”. I think if someone says something that would cause the FBI to investigate it than there must be something behind it. I don’t think the FBI would intentionally waste their own time investigating an