Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
K. Comment: I agree with the majority opinion. The Constitution is the absolute guiding law of the land, and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that its protections will be extended to state actions. The Fourth Amendment guarantees a right to privacy and assures citizens that they will be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment also imposes a warrant requirement for the majority of searches, so that most searches that occur without a warrant violate the Fourth Amendment. The search in this case certainly violated the Fourth Amendment, but whether or not the constitutional violations were as egregious as in this case should not be the determinant of whether evidence is excluded, because the Constitution absolutely bans all unreasonable searches and seizures. While the dissent suggests that other remedies can help a defendant who has been subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure, the fact is that none of those remedies can place a defendant in the position of not having been subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure. However, the remedy that comes the closest is to exclude any evidence seized during such an illegal search, which places a defendant in the same position, in a criminal trial, as he would have been absent such an illegal search. Although the exclusionary rule may result in guilty people escaping prosecution and conviction, the Constitution was not written to enable prosecution and conviction, but to ensure personal liberty.
L. Principle: Evidence obtained as the result of searches or seizures that violate the Fourth Amendment is not admissible in state or federal criminal proceedings, because the Fourteenth Amendment extends Fourth Amendment protections to state criminal court proceedings.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&page=643[continue]
"Ohio Case Brief Mapp V " (2008, January 13) Retrieved December 3, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/ohio-case-brief-mapp-v-32902
"Ohio Case Brief Mapp V " 13 January 2008. Web.3 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/ohio-case-brief-mapp-v-32902>
"Ohio Case Brief Mapp V ", 13 January 2008, Accessed.3 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/ohio-case-brief-mapp-v-32902
American Legal System: The Exclusionary Rule One of the things that differentiates American criminal law from the legal systems in other countries is the Exclusionary Rule. While the Exclusionary Rule is now a well-accepted part of American jurisprudence and has even spread throughout much of the western world, it was not always part of American law. Instead, it is relatively recent. The Exclusionary Rule is "the rule that evidence secured by
Powell was followed by the Court's decision in Brown v. Mississippi which threw out the coerced confession of a defendant in a state criminal case and was a harbinger of what would occur in the early 1960's by the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren (Brown v. Mississippi, 1936). The Warren Court began to exercise its influence on the area of Constitutional Law in the late 50's as
Terry vs. Ohio Terry Vs Ohio The issue of what constitutes a violation of the fourth amendment forms the basis of the argument in the case of Terry vs. Ohio. In this case the petitioner Terry was stopped and frisked by the officer on the streets. A brief description of the situation is as follows. Detective McFadden was walking his beat when he observed two individuals who in his opinion were "casing"
The U.S., however, is the only industrial democracy, common law or otherwise, in which courts must throw out tainted evidence in criminal trials. The U.S. Supreme Court decisions establishing and expanding on this principle have collectively come to be known as the "exclusionary rule." Although the rule had its origins in arguments about the morality of obtaining a conviction while relying on improperly obtained evidence, its primary modern justification
Toxins Cause Autism? The Jury is Still Out Nicholas Kristoff's writes about the issue of environmental toxins and autism, and the link between exposure to these toxins and the rise in autism spectrum disorders. Autism comprises a clinically heterogeneous group of disorders -- collectively referred to as "autism spectrum disorders" (ASD) -- that share common features of impaired social relationships, impaired language and communication, and repetitive behaviors or a narrow range
For them to survive crisis they are equipped with the skills to; self-soothing, thinking of the pros and cons, improving the moment and looking for destructive things to do. They can also exhibit acceptance skills by turning the mind to accept, radical acceptance and willingness vs. willfulness. Individuals with under this therapy are taught how to regulate their emotions. This is because most of those suffering from this disorder are