The rationale for the rule comes from the constitutional concept of limited governmental authority (Hall, 1992). If a search exceeds the constitutional authority of law enforcement then any evidence seized cannot be retained as evidence by the court for a trial (Hall, 1992). This rule can be an effective way to deter the police from violating a person’s rights by searching either their person or property illegally. If the police are aware of the fact that any evidence they gather illegally will not be used in court it should stop them from searching without a warrant. Exceptions Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule have developed with the many cases that have gone before the Supreme Court.
You could find yourself getting into trouble with the police if you carry out an arrest that is incorrect. In order to make a citizen’s arrest, they must come under any of the three sets of guidelines, these are: * arrest for an 'indictable offence' under PACE * arrest of a person’s committing, or about to commit, a Breach of the Peace under common law * Use of reasonable force to prevent crime or arrest offenders or persons unlawfully at large under the Criminal Law Act 1967. A citizen’s arrest is still a really important law in the UK as these powers of arrest belong to Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs). There are lots of differences between a citizen’s arrest and a police arrest... 1. If you believe a crime is about to be committed, you cannot make a citizen’s arrest; only if there has or is a crime being committed.
The issue surrounding illegal immigration through Judge Pfaelzer’s decision has been dealt with for now, but it will always remain controversial. Proposition 187 and the conflict surrounding it demonstrates how federalism is not a system of an equal sharing of power between the state and federal levels of government, but instead it is a system of shared
MIDTERM 1 Running Head: MIDTERM Midterm Project Search and Seizure Linda Branstrom Kaplan University CJ 299: Associates Capstone in Criminal Justice Professor Terry Campbell April 22, 2012 MIDTERM 2 Abstract It is firmly ingrained in our system of law that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject to only a few specifically established exceptions. The courts have outlined a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement including but not limited to, consent searches, searches of vehicles and, inventory searches. One exception the court has expressly and repeatedly refused to recognize is a general
However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws. The judiciary cannot make judgments past the jurisdiction of the law even in interests of natural justice. A strong example of this was the Belmarsh Case, where judges believed the system of holding foreigners against the will under the anti-terrorism act contradicted with human rights. This law was subsequently changed. This could pose some doubt as to the judges power, as although they can not officially change laws, they clearly have the power to suggest changes with ease, and some could argue that despite Lord Neuberger’s claims, they do indeed undermine parliamentary sovereignty through their suggestion of changes.
I also know that we need to eventually stop and think about what it is we are doing we need to hold ourselves to the standards we present and not just be all talk either. The Congress as far as I can see does not have the specific right to suspend the habeas corpus nor does the President. During extreme times and difficult times this does however happen and I would say that based on everything I have read the Supreme Court would go to the Congress and ask that they rule on this. When it came to the detainees during the 9/11 situation the decision was based on the fact they were not US citizens and they were not in the United States. The role of the Supreme Court in protecting civil
Different areas had different standards where one area would decide to tick off another may choose to prosecute. The police were allowing too many weak cases to go to court, this lead to judge directed releases and not enough preparation time for cases as in R v Lawrence. It was the total non-existence of uniformity on which the Commission elected on total restructuring on prosecutions, and recommended the formation of a new independent prosecuting authority as an Act of Parliament. The term prosecution is stated
An example of the state committing an unjust act against the individual was evidenced in the recent Troy Davis case. Even if Davis was guilty, there was enough doubt for the state to delay his execution in order to determine the best course of action to take. This is just one widely recognized example, there might be many more examples of unjust acts committed by the state. Should for some reason Troy Davis had been broken out of prison against the will of the state, once again Socrates would not justify this. It's situations such as this that makes me not believe in legal obligation to the extent which Socrates does where it's almost absolute.
This trial created a national uproar, opening the first of many debates regarding Stand Your Ground Laws, state which that person may use lethal force with no duty to retreat when faced with a “reasonable perceived threat” (US News). Although stand your ground laws provide additional means under the law for people to protect themselves and their families, they should be banned since in reality
Some states have have left it to local agencies to implement the program. The most common argument at all levels of government is the impediment of the 4th amendment which, among other things, assures citizens protection from unreasonable search and seizures. State and local governments have primarily debated the explanation of what is unreasonable and constitutes probable cause. In 2011 a Florida appellate court ruled, officials cannot forcibly draw blood from a driver in a misdemeanor DUI case, still the State Attorney continues to push for the policy to be accepted for felony DUI. Many lawyers and other citizens argue this subjects them to unreasonable searches and it over steps the United States Governments limited powers (Limhardt, A., 2011, para.