These items are sold at a profit back to the public. The funds acquired are then placed in the government asset account and the monies are used to fight the drug war. Why is “asset forfeiture” useful in fighting the drug war? Asset forfeiture is useful in fighting the drug war because by seizing the property the government believes they are slowing down and controlling the drug problem. The government is making it more costly to make and distribute drugs.
The Weeks case pertained to an appeal by a defendant who was convicted of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. The conviction was based on evidence gathered after law enforcement officers searched the defendant’s home without a warrant and seized the evidence illegally. The defendant’s conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court and this created what we now know as the exclusionary rule. It was in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), that the Supreme Court made the rule germane to the states. Justice Day said, "The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain convictions by means of unlawful searches and enforced confessions .
The court rejected the Government’s suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply where evidence is seized in reasonable good-faith reliance on a search warrant. Procedural History: In August 1981, acting on a tip from a confidential informant, officers of the Burbank Police Department began an extensive investigation by surveillance at Respondents’ residences involving drug-trafficking. Respondents Armando Sanchez and Patsy Stewart were identified to be selling large quantities of cocaine and methaqualone from their residence. A check of one of the individuals, Richardo Del Castillo, led officers to Respondent Alberto Leon who had prior arrests for drug charges and was heavily involved in the importation of drugs into this country. Based off of the police officers’ observations and activities at their homes, Officer Cyril Rombach, an experienced, narcotics investigator, prepared an affidavit for a warrant
The double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from prosecuting individuals more than one time for a single offense and from imposing more than one punishment for a single act. The Constitution states “No person shall…be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb.” Most state constitutions guarantee this right to defendants appearing in state court. States that do not specifically assure the right of double jeopardy in their laws, must still ensure the right to criminal defendants. States must uphold this right due to the guarantee in the Fifth Amendment by means of the doctrine of incorporation. Benton v. Maryland, 39 U.S. 784, 89 S. Ct. 2056, 23 L. Ed.2d 707 (1969), supports the the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause is relevant to both state and federal proceedings.
The exclusionary rule is to exclude evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement personnel. The exclusionary rule is a court-made rule. This means that it was created not in statutes passed by legislative bodies but rather by the U.S. Supreme Court. The exclusionary rule applies in federal courts of the Fourth Amendment.
In each state there are different levels and locations in which a prison is ran. As we progress as a world, we have to address the growing issues that are causing the demise of our system on both levels, state and federal. The federal prison was created by an act of Congress signed into law by President Herbert Hoover in May of 1930. Prior to the first federal prison opened, there were federal prisoners but they were housed in other locations such as state prisons. In prior decades, there were few federal crimes and a few criminals sentenced to federal prison but that was changed after the Civil War.
The FBI defines domestic terrorism as the "unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (Terrorism, 2012). The Department of Homeland Security was created after the September 11 attacks mostly to protect the United States and U.S. Territories. U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency has been added to the Department of Homeland Security to enforce laws and regulations of persons entering the United States however after 9-11, two other enforcement agencies were created, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Homeland Security - Protecting our Borders U.S. Mexico border stretches approximately 1.954 miles with an estimated half a million people enter the U.S. illegally.
Exclusionary Rule Search and seizures are protected under the fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Officer that go beyond the law and obtain evidence without a warrant are in breach of a person’s fourth amendment right. The evidence that is obtained is not admissible in court and fall under the exclusionary rule. This paper will discuss the benefits of the exclusionary rule, as well as alternative remedies to the rule. Reason for the Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule was created to protect innocent people from being harassed from law enforcement.
His defense attorney argued that the statute in which he had been indicted was unconstitutional. Since Wynehamer had legally purchased his liquors before the enactment of the statute, he was being denied his right to dispose of his property as he saw fit. The court disagreed and found the Wynehamer guilty. Wynehamer appealed the judgment, which was then upheld by the Supreme Court. The case was then sent to be reviewed by the court of
Direct action was ineffective as shown during the Journey of Reconciliation Protest as although it managed to prove that the bus companies in the South were acting illegally by continuing interstate bus segregation , there was no change in southern states to implement desegregated interstate buses and so they had failed to reach their goal . Also , even though there were many successful court cases such as the Brown Decision , the time it took to achieve their goals took very long , like in this very case which took 3 years for the supreme court to reach a verdict . However in the 60’s having been more knowledgeable of campaigning , the NAACP , coupled direct action with legal action and thus led to more notable success in the Montgomery bus boycott