He begins with stating that the case must determine if the petitioners “were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.". He felt that personal choices such as homosexuality might not be formally recognized by the law, but liberty granted by the constitution gives those persons that choice and they should not be charged as criminals in doing so. He communicated that Sodomy Laws, along with others like it in other states, were rooted within Judeo-Christian beliefs. Furthermore, the Texas Sodomy Law was more of a moral law instead of one that protected citizens. He did not specifically say that the Texas Sodomy Law was wrong but that the petitioners had “constitutionally-protected liberty” which the Texas Sodomy Law violates.
In order to conduct a consent search, the law enforment offical's must have the permission of the person whose property is being searched, by granting consent the defendant waivies his or her Fourth Amendment right to unlawful search and seizure. In other words when the defendant gives his or her permission to the police to enter and search, than no search warrant is required. In most cases, the person may refuse to give consent; however, the law enforcement agent does not have to tell the person that consent is voluntary. Should any of the evidence obtained result in a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove that the consent search was entirely voluntary and the person granting consent was not coerced. In addition, once a consent search has started, the person whose property is being searched may, at any time, revoke his or her consent.
Investigation: A person can have reasonable privacy even in a public place. In this case, the person utilizing the phone booth would expect reasonable privacy because they would not think that their conversation would be recorded regardless of the conversations that took place. Under the Fourth Amendment, the taping of the phone conversations constitutes the search even though the search was achieved without a warrant. Conclusion: The evidence such as the tapes were inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the conviction was overturned.
He contends that his Fourth Amendment right was violated by the warrantless search and seizure in his prison cell. Issues In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), the Supreme Court enunciated a new standard for determining the limitations of the Fourth Amendment. Until now, this court has not been faced with the problem of applying this new test to searches involving prison inmates. The protection of the Fourth Amendment no longer depends upon "constitutionally protected" places.
Blackwood requests that evidence pertaining to the concealed loaded handgun be excluded as his Charter rights were violated under Sections 8, 9, or 10(b). Section 8 – “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure” Some of the issues that need to be addressed in order to analyze whether or not Mr. Blackwood’s rights have been violated include: • Did the accused have a reasonable expectation of privacy? • Was the search an unreasonable intrusion on that right to privacy? • The guarantee of security from unreasonable search and seizure only protects a reasonable expectation. An assessment needs to be made as to whether or not this situation falls into that category.
Second, a prosecution must then involve the same offense. Last, the prosecutions must be given by the same government entity. The federal and state government are separate sovereign entities, each entity have the power to prosecute for violations of their laws. This leads into the first question, “..why under certain circumstances a state trial and a federal trial may be held for the murder of the same person without violating the double jeopardy clause..” This answer is found within the dual sovereign doctrine. It states that the Constitution forbids being placed twice for the same crime, you cannot be placed in double jeopardy by the same sovereign, by the same government.
Due process promises people the right to a speedy trial. The equal opportunity clause promises that the law will not discriminate against any person because of his or her differences. This amendment protects people against state and federal laws. Due Process and Crime Control Models Due Process The Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, requires due process, which is a requirement that the justice system officials respect the rights of those who have been accused of a crime. The three requirements for police officers are: 1) search and seizure, 2) arrests, and 3) interrogation (Criminal Justice Today, p. 127-128).
In conclusion, if I were the judge ruling in this case, I could apply the exclusionary rule and any evidence that was obtained during the unlawful search would not be admissible. I would rule this way with the Mapp decision as my precedent, to ensure that police departments are encouraging their officers adhere to constitutional
Held: 1. The Petition Clause does not provide absolute immunity to defendants charged with expressing libelous and damaging falsehoods in petitions to Government officials. Although the value in the right of petition as an important aspect of self-government is beyond question, it does not follow that the Framers of the First Amendment believed that the Petition Clause provided absolute immunity from damages for libel. In 1845 this Court, after reviewing the common law, held in White v. Nicholls, 3 How. 266, that a petition to a Government official was actionable if prompted by "express malice," which was defined as "falsehood and the absence of probable cause," and nothing has been presented to suggest that that holding should be altered.
The Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule to prevent police misconduct. When a police officer is in violation of an individual’s fourth amendment right which is the right to be free from illegal search and seizure, the evidence found during that illegal act is kept out of federal court. This would have been helpful during the OJ Simpson trial. The exclusionary rule not only has three elements to it but it has a purpose for it too. With this are the three elements which are as follows.