When does lawful police action impermissibly create exigent circumstances which prelude warrantless entry; and which of the five tests currently being used by United States Courts of Appeals is proper to determine when impermissibly created exigent circumstances exist? Holding: 1. The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. (a) The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. Although “ ‘searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable,’ ” Brigham City v. Stuart , 547 U. S. 398 , this presumption may be overcome when “ ‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment ,” Mincey v. Arizona , 437 U. S. 385 .
After booking, the accused will have an initial appearance where right to counsel is applied and the defendant will be notified of why they are being detained. C. Depending on the type of crime being evaluated, temporary release or detainment is determined based on Eighth Amendment Rights. D. Thesis- All citizens, guilty and innocent, are guaranteed the right to fair and speedy trials when they enter the criminal process. II. Beginning The Trial Process A.
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.
The exclusionary rule has typically been utilized to stop prosecutors and law enforcement from unlawfully collecting evidence. Evidence collected because of illegal evidence may be thrown out. For the more than 100 years after the Fourth Amendment was ratified, it held very little weight because any evidence that was obtained by law enforcement through an infringement of search and seizure requirements was still permissible throughout the defendant's trial. The Fourth Amendment law was changed significantly when the Supreme Court made its decision in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914). The Weeks case pertained to an appeal by a defendant who was convicted of transporting lottery tickets through the mail.
Exclusionary Rule Evaluation CJA/364 Exclusionary Rule Evaluation When an individual examines the exclusionary rule, components have to be taken into account in order to determine a meaning or justification for the law enforcement to obey by. This rule does not have anything to do with the fourth amendment although there are similar. For years the exclusionary rule has been used in order to understand how evidence is gathered and apprehended. This essay will explain the evaluation of the exclusionary rule, the exceptions, advantages and disadvantages to the rule. Although the examination of the exclusionary rule may constitute deterrence for law enforcement, the rule still may be considered constitution although its existence (Zalman, M. (2011)).
Sentencing of a Felon John E. Brown Strayer University LEG 320 – Criminal Law Professor Shawn M. Koenig, Esq. November 24, 2013 Sentencing of a Felon Introduction: Sentencing in the United States is governed by the legal process of our judicial system to ensure that all criminals are treated fairly when they are being sentenced. While using certain principles, the court and the legal system work together to make sure that they issue the appropriate punishment. When dealing with proportionality laws, it all depends on if you’re dealing with the state or federal law, and whether the death penalty might apply. When it comes to capital punishment, proportionality under the Eight Amendment to the U. S. Constitution means that any state or federal law that allows for the death penalty must specify the exact crimes for which the death penalty may be imposed.
Therefore the constitutional law does not generally pertain to private security. Though the law could if a private security officer: acts as an agent for public officers; obtains evidence as an agent for public officers to use in prosecution; acts with deputized police powers; is employed by a public authority (Private Security Advisory Council, 1976, p. 3-4). Restraints for private security officers would be Criminal law; a social harn to which the offender is answerable to society not an individual and is punishable by law (Private Security Advisory Council, 1976, p. 4). The criminal law is the deterrent because it is assumed the law in known. Seeing the outer limits on the behavior of private security officers can show criminal instead of watching the officer on a day by day report (Private Security Advisory Council, 1976, p.4).
But in recent times, high profile criminal cases are opting for judge only trials by applying for a no jury order. As of current, The Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) contains the guidelines in which a case must satisfy to be granted a no jury order. Section 615 of the Act states that ‘the court may make a no jury order if it considers it is in the interests of justice to do so’. This conveys that the factors, which are to be considered for application of jury, are ultimately assessed and dictated by the judge. These cases are often granted on the condition of pre-trial
If evidence is withheld, it violates the defendant’s rights and justice will not be achieved. Prosecutors have to follow the Brady Rule, which was established in 1963 after the Brady v. Maryland ruling (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). This rule requires prosecutors to expose any material they have, and any material the government may have, to the defense team. The material exposed is known as “Brady material” (Legal Information Institute, n.d.).This evidence may be favorable to the defendant’s case and may help prove the innocence of the accused and may also shorten any prison sentence he or she may receive. If, at any time, the evidence is not given to the defense, any evidence that has been exposed to that point will be determined unvalid (Legal Information Institutue, n.d.).
Jessica Young 3/12/15 Week 8 Assignment Administrative Law The exclusionary rule was created to enforce the substantive right provided by the Fourth Amendment. Unlike the Fifth Amendment, which bans self-incrimination, the Fourth Amendment did not expressly exclude evidence that was obtained by unreasonable and illegal search and seizure. It was not until recently that the Supreme Court addressed the application of the rule to administrative law with the case of INS v. Lopez-Mendoza. The Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule is not applicable in administrative deportation proceedings. Before then the Supreme Court had determined that the exclusionary rule applied to all federal and state criminal trials, but never in civil cases.