Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Hypothetical Case Involving the 4th Amendment
Criminal Justice There is a great deal of context that needs to be clarified in order to rule fairly in this case.
I am not sure how I would rule in this case. I would need to know more about the case such as if there was other evidence besides what was obtained with the heat sensor. I am not also familiar with the rules regarding police officers and the technology they can use on public property. Don't police officers position themselves on public property and aim speed guns at traffic in order to make arrests on public streets or highways? If it is permissible for that kind of evidence to lead to a ticket or arrest, why should the heat sensor evidence be thrown out? This is why I would need to know more about the case. Have the police been monitoring this person's activities before the heat sensor was used? Did the person participate in activities that gave the police a valid reason to be monitoring him and the house in the first
...
Without that information, my gut reaction is that the defendant has a right to an appeal, even though it is not overly probably that he will win. I think it is really important to know if the police already had reason to be watching this person. If the cops out of the blue just were using that technology recklessly until they got a reasonable hit that ended up resulting in an arrest, than though the man is growing marijuana in a state where it is illegal, I would rule in favor of the defendant. If the police were building a case or investigation against this person and had documentation that proved or sincerely implied illegal activities, then it would be permissible that over the course of that investigation, they used the heat sensor device to detect the heat signature that was likely heat lamps for an illegal activity. In that or a similar…
Criminal Procedure, Section 3051, Professor Passante 4th Amendment Paper Hypothetical Fact Pattern Larry did not violate Kathy's Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment does not confer a general right of privacy. Instead, it specifically protects people from certain types of government intrusion. Therefore, before one can claim that a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred, one first has to determine whether the government was responsible for the intrusion. Larry is a private security guard.
Mandatory Sentencing Public policy, crime, and criminal justice Mandatory Sentencing: Case Study Critique The prime grounds of mandatory sentencing laws are utilitarian. The laws come with long prison sentences for recidivists, drug dealers and isolation of violent criminals from the community aiming at preventing them from committing additional crimes outside the prison walls. In addition, the design of mandatory sentencing aim at deterring and portraying a harsh reflection to potential offenders of the
ethics of abortion. The writer takes one case of a requested abortion and explores its ethical possibilities. The writer uses several cases to argue that this case is ethically sound for the performance of an abortion. There was one source used to complete this paper. Abortion has always been a very sensitive issue. Most of the nation is divided into two camps, pro-choice, and pro-life. Those who are in the
Supreme Court vs. The First Amendment: Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) While at war with Germany during World War I, the United States Congress passed the Espionage Act, outlawing any attempt to foster insubordination or obstruct the draft. The Espionage Act, which was passed in 1914, made it illegal to defame the government or do anything that might impede the war effort. Charles Schenck, a general secretary of the
The statute applies even where there is no actual government reimbursement. The opportunity to invest in a "private-pay only" joint venture may, in some circumstances, constitute an inducement to physicians to refer patients to the joint venture partner for other services covered by governmental programs. In general, violation of the statute is a two-way street While it is theoretically possible for one person to violate the statute by offering a kickback to (or
M. Lin's release from MCF has had the effect of rendering his lawsuit moot. In this case, M. Lin was incarcerated at the time the lawsuit was filed, but not at the time it is being decided. Thus, M. Lin's cause of action fails on the issue of mootness. Additionally, of the six members whom were denied visitation privileges, five of them have had sons which whom were formerly