1 2
1 2
6. A contract that contains a clause prohibiting its assignment will usually prevent it from being assigned-T…
4. A court may refuse to enforce a contract or any clause of a contract if is considers the contract or clause unconscionable, that is, the consideration is so ridiculously inadequate that it shocks the court 's conscience. This designation usually happens when there is a great inequality in bargaining power between the two parties.…
Among the arguments in support of the exclusionary rule4 by its proponents are the following:…
In 1914, Weeks v. United States was decided by the Supreme Court. In Weeks, the Court made a landmark decision relating to illegal search and seizure by law enforcement called the Exclusionary Rule. The Exclusionary Rule provided that evidence “illegally seized by law enforcement officers in violation of a suspect’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used against the suspect in a criminal prosecution.” (Exclusionary Rule, 2010, p. 287). However, it was not until the 1961 case of Mapp v. Ohio that the Court made the Exclusionary Rule binding on the states…
The exclusionary rule is intended to reject prove acquired disregarding a criminal litigant's Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment ensures against irrational quests and seizures by law requirement work force. On the off chance that the hunt of a criminal suspect is preposterous, the proof acquired in the pursuit will be rejected from trial.The exclusionary administer is a court-made run the show. This implies it was made not in statutes go by authoritative bodies but instead by the U.S. Incomparable Court. The exclusionary control applies in government courts by goodness of the Fourth Amendment. The Court has decided that it applies in state courts in spite of the fact that the due procedure condition of the Fourteenth Amendment.(The Bill of Rights—the…
When comparing Sonic (America’s Drive Inn), and McDonald’s patrons would “be” surprised to know that these two restaurants are the same in many ways, but their different at the same time. Although McDonald’s and Sonic sell similar food items they both have many differences in store design, menus, and customer service. Sonic Restaurants gives customers a feeling like attending a drive inn movie or a skating rink; whereas in McDonald’s Restaurants there is a golden arch shaped like the letter “m” on the name board outside the restaurant, and in the inside there is a clown picture of Ronald McDonald on the wall. Inside McDonald’s Restaurant are tables and chairs where the customer can sit down and eat inside. Some McDonald’s offers a play land for children. Patrons also can give their child’s birthday party there. Both restaurants are popular in the fast food industry. They both cater to the same type of customers and offer somewhat similar food items. For instance, Sonic has the Brown Bag Meal deal for $8.99, and McDonald’s has the two Big Mac Sandwiches combo for $10. McDonald’s is popular for its WI-FI connection in their stores. McDonald’s showcase their restaurants as clean, comfortable, and welcoming. It seems to me they are trying to stay in tune with the customer lifestyle. As for Sonic Restaurants they went from a root beer stand to a popular franchise overnight. Statistics show that Sonic has become the largest drive inn chain in the United States.…
In the words of Malcolm Wilkey, “few people have considered the enormous social cost of the exclusionary rule, and fewer still have thought about possible alternatives to the rule.(Wilkey, 2016)” This article will address these issues. This article also brings up the opinion of several other scholars majorly though of one man by the name of Kamisar's who wrote Is the exclusionary rule an 'illogical' or 'unnatural' interpretation of the Fourth Amendment? This article will likewise touch base in other countries and compare it back to the United States. Through this, it was possible to determine that indeed other countries exemption of the exclusionary rule seems to work better than our use of the exclusionary rule.…
I find that the evidence would still be valid based on the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. The good faith exception states “that If officers had a reasonable, good-faith belief that they were acting per legal authority, such as by relying on a search warrant that is later found to have been legally defective, the illegally seized evidence is admissible” (Busby, 2009). The good faith exception was established by a 6-3 U.S Supreme court decision in the United States v. Leon 468 U.S. 897 (1984). The majority opinion, as written by Bryon R. White, was that the exclusionary rule was established to deter law enforcements violations of the 4th amendment warranting against illegal search and seizure. Therefore “reliable physical evidence seized by officers reasonably relying on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate” did not violate the exclusionary rule and the evidence was to be admitted (Kaye, 2011). The good faith exception was reviewed and expanded in Arizona v. Evans 514 U.S. 1 (1995), a case that I feel directly correlates to my decision reference the admissibility of the evidence in the example given. In Arizona v. Evans an officer conducts a legal traffic stop. Upon running the driver’s license the officer discovers an outstanding warrant for arrest. Pursuant to the arrest a search was conduct and marijuana discovered. When charging Evan’s when possession the officers discovered that the warrant had been quashed. In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that this was not a violation of Evan’s 4th Amendment rights since the evidence, though obtained based on an illegal warrant, was legal based on the good faith…
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “[t]he right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (U.S. Const. amend. IV). When the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens are violated, the criminal justice system enforces the exclusionary rule, which seeks to discourage law enforcement officers from using improper or illegal investigative procedures. In Mapp v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the exclusionary rule was…
This exception allows the Government to offer illegally-seized evidence on cross-examination of the defendant to impeach the defendant after the defendant takes the stand and perjures himself. It should be noted that the exception applies only to the testimony of the defendant, and not to any other…
Should the exclusionary rule be abolished? My answer to that is no. The exclusionary rule is one of the fundamental ways the rights of the all people are protected. Mainly the rule is to protect you from police power. If the exclusionary rule was abolished you will more than likely see police brutality on the rise. Officer’s, Detectives, etc will cut corners and otherwise ignore the basic rights of the people they serve. If the rule was abolished we will see sometimes innocent people put in jail just because the law enforcement officer thought they were a criminal. Basically we will take the rights to a fair trial away from the individuals. You will see a lot of evidence brought up in court that never insisted in the reports. Without…
As a United States Supreme Court Justice it is our duty to uphold the United States Constitution. It is our responsible to interpret, and understand the meaning of the Constitution. Ultimately, it is also our responsibility to protect the citizens of the United States by upholding the law. That also means we protect them from the very same people responsible for enforcing our laws.…
Industrial tycoons of the nineteenth century used whatever they could to get to the top of the economy, by either contributing positively or in some cases even if it meant destroying all the other industries that got in their way. In the nineteenth century, industrial tycoons were known as either a robber baron (Jay Gould) or a Captain of Industry (Henry Ford). Depending on how someone contributed to the growth of businesses, labeled them as one or the other. Some of the contributing factors that played an effect on identifying an industrialist as a robber baron or industry captain are how they came to power of the business industry, how they used their power, and how they gave back to society. These industrial tycoons were some of the wealthiest men in the US.…
This paper will present the Exclusionary Rule and the original intentions for its enactment. It will discuss the importance of the rule and how it is a protection against an unlawful search and seizure and a violation of the rights provided by the Fourth Amendment. Also, this document will display the history of the Exclusionary Rule, with its first appearance in the case, Boyd v. United States in 1886. Weeks v. United States will show a better-established, stronger version of the exclusionary rule. Another expansion of the rule will be described by the Mapp v. Ohio case. In this paper, I will also state and describe the four primary exceptions to the exclusionary rule: Inevitable Discovery Doctrine, Valid Independent Source, Harmless Error, and the Good Faith Exception. I will subsequently describe the possible abuse of these exceptions and the complications with the exceptions. The document will examine statistical data regarding the exclusionary rule and conclude with my personal opinions regarding the exclusionary rule and its exceptions.…
In 1914, during the Supreme Court case Weeks versus the United States, the exclusionary rule was established (Hendrie 1). The exclusionary rule was a part of the Fourth Amendment. It states that evidence found at a crime scene is not admissible if it was not found under the correct procedures. This means that the government cannot conduct illegal searches of a person or place and use evidence that is found at that time. The government must go through the procedures of obtaining warrants or have probable cause to search an individual or place. The exclusionary rule is used to provide civil rights for individuals and restricts powers of the local and federal government (Lynch 1).…