This exclusionary rule was adopted to remove any incentive for police misconduct.” (Magleby, 2015, p. 433) This case demonstrates how even if correct about their assumption cops must follow certain procedures to be lawfully upheld. This limits the government ability to push rules and regulations upon us that were not agreed upon by all Americans. The second aspect of the due process is substantive due process. This governs how governmental powers may be used. It is set forth to limit the powers of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches.
other house are for the benefit of Australia rather than the government, and include no instances of discrimination. The judiciary also exercises the power to control legislation if it is deemed not in accordance with the ‘rule of law’. This was proven in the landmark case of Chu Keng Lim vs Minister for Immigration. Parliament had amended the migration act to provide for the compulsory detention of certain designated persons who could not be released from custody by an order of the court. The high court rejected this legislation stating that it was “ beyond the legislative power of parliament to invest the executive with an arbitrary to detain citizens in custody not withstanding that the power was conferred in terms which sought to divorce such detention in custody from both punishment and criminal guilt.
This principle was articulated by Justice Day in the following passage: The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures...should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts, which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution, and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights (Arthur & Shaw 357). Additionally, the Supreme Court has also established the exclusionary rule as being “an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments” (Arthur & Shaw 357). What can be ascertained as a result from these two passages of legal opinion deliv... ... middle of paper ... ... officers consistently lying in order to protect themselves. The problem being the supposed truism that police officials are more trustworthy than the average citizen. Because of this, any court and especially one based upon this tort method would fail to hold a violating police official accountable for his actions.
It is important that upon request, the criminal must be informed of their constitutional rights and must be allowed to exercise them. The Chief Justice Warren argues that when an individual is taken into custody, the Miranda warnings must be given. If not, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self – incrimination is jeopardized when the individual is deprived of his/her freedom. He also argues that the criminal can waive his/her rights and agree to make a statement once the Miranda rule has been given; though, a valid waiver is not presumed by mere silence. Chief Justice Warren further explained that the Miranda rule do not hamper the police in investigating crime because the general on the scene interrogation is not affected in any way.
In criminal law the courts are blind to the ideas that people are different. Every person is given the same privileges and limitations as the next person regardless of sex or race. We do not live in a system were there is a set of rules for men and a different set of rules for women. The application of these laws can be flawed however, because the means in which law is applied is done through human eyes. In theory law should protect every person in the same way, but the application of our laws falls short of this ideal.
Cases are registered under section 154 of the Code. A police officer is competent to investigate only cognizable offences. Non- cognizable offences cannot be investigated by the police without obtaining prior orders from the courts. A police officer can examine witnesses under section 161. However, the statements are not to be signed by the witnesses.
Law enforcement ensures that they do on violate the rights of citizens by upholding Amendments IV, V, and VIII. Amendment IV declares that police officers are not allowed to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures or obtain warrants without probable cause, which is supported, by oath or affirmation. If this right is violated, the case that the police officer is trying to prove may be thrown out of court due to inadmissible evidence. This right, not only protects the police from having their case dismissed, it ensures that Americans do not have to live under a dictatorship. Amendment V specifies that the police cannot charge an individual twice for the same crime.
The Bill of Rights 1689 created the foundation for the Parliamentary sovereignty where Crown agreed with the Parliament to limit its power. One of the key definitions of Parliamentary sovereignty was given by AV Dicey who defines it as “the Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament. Dicey’s theory has both positive element and negative element. Positive in that it states that Parliament can pass any laws on any subject as it sees fit and it can make and unmake laws and it is not bound by the previous Parliament nor can it bind the future Parliament. The negative element of Dicey’s theory is that no one can question the validity of Act of Parliament even the courts.
It provided that no person should be entitled at common law to receive compensation in respect of damage to or destruction of property caused by lawful acts of the crown during the outbreak of a war in which the sovereign is engaged. As a result of this act, Burmah Oil was no longer entitled to compensation, which would have been its common law right. It is now recognised that it is only the Acts of Parliaments that have legal sovereignty. The court will not allow a mere resolution of the House of Commons. Parliament does have limitations on its sovereignty that will now be discussed.
Judge Patrick T. Madden of Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that the police should not keep secret the information of the officers and if they will do so, they will have to justify the reason why. The Judge also declared that evidence be provided on occasions where there has been a risk or danger when the of... ... middle of paper ... ...e officers argued that, the lives of officers would be in danger they were unsuccessful to provide evidence for their arguments. Not being able to provide the evidence jeopardized their arguments. I believe that the public has the right to know about the misconducts and unlawful activities of the officers. I also believe that their identities be kept private.