Actions such as these led to the Exclusionary Rules creation by the United States Supreme Court. Rationale and Purpose The Exclusionary Rule was designed to exclude evidence that was obtained in violation of defendants Fourth Amendment rights (The Free Dictionary, 2012). The primary purpose of this rule was to deter the police from misconduct that violate defendants’ rights (The Free Dictionary, 2012). If the police conduct a search that is unreasonable then any evidence that is obtained in the search will be excluded from any criminal trial (The Free Dictionary, 2012). The rationale for the rule comes from the constitutional concept of limited governmental authority (Hall, 1992).
The Respondents argument was that people have a liberty interest which is protected by the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause and it should extend to terminally ill patients who are mentally competent and wish to take part in doctor assisted suicide. The US District Court using the rulings in both Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health determined that the law did violate the Constitution because it “places and undue burden on the exercise of [that] constitutionally protected liberty interest.” (1) The District Court went further by determining that the law also violated the requirement in the Equal Protection Clause that requires that all people “similarly situated” should be treated I the same manner. The case was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and a panel of judges from that court heard the case and
The law is a rule of conduct or action prescribed by a controlling authority. The goal of the law is to resolve any issues with violence, protect citizens, health safety, and welfare. Sources of Law The states have the power to regulate health care through their police power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens. For example: The Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantee several freedoms to individuals. Most importantly are the three branches of the government are Legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
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. Prior to this ruling, an individual accused of violating state law could rely only on that specific state’s protection against double jeopardy. Some states offered greater protection against double jeopardy then others do, and commonly the level of protection offered is less than that offered under the federal Constitution. The Supreme Court said this was impermissible. The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy was designed to protect individuals from being subjected to the threat of trial and possible conviction for more than one time for an alleged offense.
Ruling: Ultimately the court ruled in favor of Smith (8-0) and it was decided by the Federal District Court that although McDonald was within the general protection of the Petition Clause it does not grant him absolute immunity. Although the right to petition government officials is undoubtedly an important aspect in self-government, this right is still subject to the same legal limitations as the First Amendment. Therefore the claims that were made in the petition were subject to libel lawsuits. The Court of Appeals affirmed. On certiorari the US Supreme Court affirmed the judgments made by the other courts.
As such, physicians are targeted for product promotion by pharmaceutical companies, even when the risks of doing so outweigh the benefits. Drug Companies should not be allowed to personally market drugs to physicians. Product promotion is critical for any large pharmaceutical company. At the same time, because pharmaceutical interventions can monumentally impact human health, promotion of products must follow strict guidelines set by the FDA. Ethical promotion requires pharmaceutical companies to provide exact product facts, without recommending “off-label” use, i.e., promoting a product outside its specified FDA-approved label and guidelines for distribution, handling, etc.
Under this law, any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was signed into law by President Bush on November 5, 2003. It was found unconstitutional in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California, the Southern District of New York, and the District of Nebraska. The federal government appealed the district court rulings, first bringing Carhart v. Gonzales before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The panel unanimously affirmed the ruling of the Nebraska court on July 8, 2005.
His thesis throughout the book: “Is burning the American flag as an act of protest protected by the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech.” Goldstein takes us from the 1989 incident that ignited the national controversy back to the origins of the flag as a symbol of America’s liberty and democracy. He explains the history of the American flag’s debate on desecration. Before 1984, the government had passed laws preventing desecration of the flag, but now Supreme Court protects burning the flag by the First Amendment. The author of this incredible work is a professor of political science at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. He has also taught at San Diego State University.
My research paper will argue that the exclusionary rule needs to be changed and although it is a right, federal and certain state laws should not be included with the exclusionary rule. While I do believe the exclusionary rule act provides a basic human protection on rights that is significant in our legal system it needs to be changed. Four major cases have shown the power of the exclusionary act: Weeks v. United States in 1914, Silverthorne Lumber Company v. United States in 1920, Wolf v. Colorado in 1949, and Mapp v. Ohio in 1961 and all have added to the interpretation and decision making on evidence in court cases. Fruit of the poisons tree doctrine in 1920 and the creation of the good faith clause in 1984 has created even more interpretation for the courts on whether evidence seized is valid to use in court or not. Despite these provisions of interpretation, however, it does have flaws within it and in certain instances evidence that is protected by the exclusionary rule should be included in obtaining a conviction in criminal proceedings.
The two General Statutes of Connecticut that deal with this specific action and criminalized the appellants are ss 53-32 and 54-196. The former prohibiting the use of any kind of birth control while the latter extends the offense to anyone who assists, counsels, or advises another person to commit such action. After the arrest of Griswold and Buxton, the Circuit Court within the Sixth Circuit of Connecticut rendered their decision and the defendants were convicted of violating Connecticut's contraceptive laws. The defendants proceeded to appeal the judgment to the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, but the court affirmed the original decision. Once again the defendants appealed and the case was directed to The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors where it was affirmed.