Acquainted With the Law Various Law Terms-3

¶ … Acquainted With the Law Various Law Terms-3 Insider Trading This is either legal or illegal (Priebe, 2012). It is legal and legitimate when corporate officers, directors and shareholders of at least 10% of the outstanding stock of the business. They file the required information with the Securities and Exchange Commission at regular periods (Priebe). Illegal Insider Trading This is conducted by trusted person but violates that company's trust (Priebe, 2012). The person is usually someone who enjoys fiduciary trust in working for and keeping the best interest of the company or its shareholders.

He may be an officer, a director or an outsider who has access to confidential information about the company. That outsider may be the company's banker, auditor, or lawyer. In general, he is an insider who gives or receives inside information or tips (Priebe). Characteristics of the Inside Information It must be important and private (Priebe, 2012). It must be essential enough to motivate the trusted person to act on it. It must also be unknown to the public.

Employees who possess or have access to important and confidential company information can be prosecuted for illegal inside trading (Priebe). Perceptions Some argue that it is a legitimate form of corporate compensation (Priebe, 2012). Others believe markets will weaken if conversations between securities analysts and corporate insiders are limited. Still others contend that there is no victim in this act and, thus, the government should not spend uselessly in trying to eliminate it. But SEC debunks all these arguments (Priebe).

Hate Crimes and the First Amendment The Police Department of the University of California in Irvine defines a hate crime as "a criminal offense against persons, property or society, motivated wholly or partly by bias against an individual's or a group's & #8230; race, religion, .. origin, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation (Menamos, 2012). It is usually expressed by graffiti, verbal intimidation or threats, harassment, trespassing and stalking, property damage, arson, hate mail, murder, physical assault and threats, and actual assault with weapons.

Of the 8,049 reported hate crimes from Stop Hate 2000, the majority or 58.5% of cases were on race. The second highest number was on religion at 17.2%, followed by sexual orientation at 13.7%. An analysis conducted by the Los Angeles Times showed that of the 180 reported crimes in 1994, only 22 were reviewed. Of this number, 16 were rejected for lack of evidence (Menamos). The First Amendment One difficulty in prosecuting hate crimes is the claim that it is a First Amendment right (Menamos, 2012).

Hate crimes can be committed without hate speech, which is not always a crime. An exchange of hateful statements is not always a hate crime. But opponents argue that hate speech does not contribute to the progress of society. It should, therefore, not be tolerated, accepted or protected (Menamos) No Unified Legislation Further, hate crimes vary among the States where they exist (Menamos, 2012). There is hence no unified legislation, which controls these crimes.

Per Stop Hate 2000 report, sexual orientation was a major type of crime but 20 States excluded it as a basis for hate crimes. Moreover, 8 States do not even have hate crimes (Menamos). Exclusionary Rule of the Fourth Amendment This rule protects one from unlawful or improper searches and seizures so that evidence obtained as a results are inadmissible as evidence in a court case (Montoya, 2012). This rule was established to prevent misconduct by the police and government officials. Its source is the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

It states that it protects a person's house, documents and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures. It also states that warrants cannot be issued without probable cause. This rule is often used as a remedy for a violation of the Fourth Amendment (Montoya). It has produced significant effects on criminal law cases (Montoya, 2012). It developed a system wherein events in illegally obtained evidence are analyzed in determining the admissibility of evidence. Quite often, it is not admissible. One major impact is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine.

It renders inadmissible not only illegally obtained evidence but all evidence acquired because of the original illegally obtained. This illegally obtained evidence is the "poisonous tree." Its fruit or all other evidence should likewise be rejected. This system may be counteracted by the "purge taint" doctrine through the production of new evidence (Montoya). Exceptions One is the good faith exception, whereby an officer relies on a search warrant in good faith but later finds out that it lacks probable cause (Montoya, 2012).

Another exception is the plain view doctrine, whereby the evidence is in an officer's plain view for seizing without a warrant. And a third is the inevitable discovery doctrine, whereby a regular police investigation would have produced an otherwise illegally obtained evidence (Montoya). Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment In the past, the government could seize land and property without requiring the owner's consent and without compensation for him (Daniels, 2012). As a consequence, laws were passed to control this power and set up people's rights.

One was the Magna Carta, which was established in England in the 13th century. It contained the principle of due process of law whereby the government may not deprive any citizen of life, liberty or property without it. It became enshrined in most democratic nations (Daniels). Eminent Domain Since the colonial era, laws guaranteed the government's rights over all the natural property of the United States (Daniels, 2012). That early, the government.