“For example, it makes little sense to require an officer to obtain a search warrant to seize contraband that is in plain view. Under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement, the appropriateness of every warrantless search is decided on a case-by-case basis, weighing the defendant's privacy interests against the reasonable needs of law enforcement under the circumstances” (G K. Hill, 2005). Another exception to warrant requirements as it pertains to the above article is that the video released shows there was a lack of physical harm as seen on George Zimmerman. This was important to the prosecution because Zimmerman claimed Trayvon Martin attacked him and his death was a result of self defense. In conclusion, authority’s base warrants on probable cause which are only necessary in a small percentage of cases.
The Government Goes Too Far As American citizens, we all have the right to have protection from unlawful searches/seizures and to have privacy. These rights are undoubtedly guaranteed under the 4th Amendment. With the events that took place in the DLK case, the rights of DLK, particularly those protected under the Fourth Amendment, were evidently violated when the law enforcement used heat imaging to see whether or not he was growing marijuana in his own home. According to Document A, what we expect to be private is constitutionally protected by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. “But what he seeks to keep as private, even in an area accessible to the public may be constitutionally protected” ~ Justice Potter Stewert (Katz vs. United States).
A writ of habeas corpus is a directive from a court requiring the government to justify the imprisonment of a citizen. Because of the writ of habeas corpus guarantee, an individual cannot be held for more than a short period of time without being formally charged with a crime. (McNamara, 2010) The Due process clause also affords the accused of the right to trial by a jury of ones peers. These case are handled so that in a federal proceeding formal charges can not be levied without a grand jury hearing where an indictment must be issued. The jury trial and grand jury guarantees are intended to protect private citizens from over-zealous police officers, prosecutors and judges.
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
In Clayman vs Obama, Judge Richard echoed that surveillance and collection of telephony data by NSA without the knowledge of the general public was against the spirit of the constitution of America. He said that the right to privacy is a right that needs to be guaranteed by the state. The right should not be taken away from the persons by the state. In another ruling ten days after the first one, J. William in ACLU vs Clapper arrived at a diametrically opposite decision with a different reasoning. The judge appreciated the right to privacy as envisioned under the constitution but argued that the value of intelligence outweighed the right.
People have said the system can be too harsh and there are those who have said the system can be too lenient, and that could be the reason why there are so many mixed feelings over the due process and crime control models. In the due process model the main point is to protect all individuals and allow them their constitutional rights and freedoms they are given in the United States, no matter if you’re in this country legally or not. “For the Due Process Model, the “aim of the process is at least as much to protect the factually innocent as it is to convict the factually guilty.”’(Herbert Packer, Criminal Procedure, Ch. 1) The due process model protects people’s rights so it can making officers of the law build a case against the person accused by collecting evidence through warrants, and the person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In due process a criminal case cannot be built against someone unless the proper steps have been met to the courts standards.
The legal requirements that they have to follow are based on the evidence that is present looking into the physical signs of the aggressors. Normally when the arrival of an officer they will look into the argument s meaning the pointing finger as to who did what. An officers has to follow the procedures in their stat normally there is a mandatory arrest when dealing a domestic situation (Hess Orithmann, C. and Hess, K.M., 2013, p.311). What physical or photographic evidence should be obtained in this
The Founding Father of the United States added this amendment to the Constitution for two reasons, ("The Free Dictionary", 2014). First they wanted to prevent those accused but not yet convicted of crimes from spending a long period of time incarcerated when they have not been found guilty of it yet. The second reason was the fear that if the trial was delayed the memories of witness could fade, witnesses themselves could disappear, and evidence could be lost. While both the prosecution and defense could be hurt by the second reason, the first is the most important as the defendant would be deprived of life, liberty, and ability to provide for themselves and their family. Not to mention the damage to a person’s reputation that could occur as a result of being held in jail for a prolonged period of time.
An example of due process would be Miranda Rights, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.” These rights are intended to protect the arrestees Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer self-incriminating questions (Clark, R. 2013). In most cases, after a person has been arrested emotions and adrenaline can play a huge factor in their decision making, resulting in a false statement or confession.
There are immigrants who wish to obey the law. They applied for visas long before the throngs who are now demanding rights. It's time for those lawbreakers to start at the back of the line, too.”( Alfonso) I believe he is right and that this is uncalled for and in truth against the American value of no discrimination regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity. Yet, these illegal immigrants have the audacity to say that they are in the right, and that they should not be screened and deported back to their country. In the article Immigrant activism taking a bold turn, there are many discussions on how illegal immigrants are boycotting businesses that