The laws of the United States can be hard to understand sometimes. The Fourth Amendment states that people have a right not to be searched without a reasonable warrant and that people have a right to feel secure in their homes. There are acts giving police permission to do what ever they need to to keep drunks off the streets. There are also rules and regulations, kind of like a sports game, and, just like games, there are always ways to get around these rules. Like finding it legal to randomly stop cars to give people breathalyzer tests, or entering people's homes and searching for things without a warrant. Unlike a game however, the results of going around these rules can sometimes be devastating. Police may ruin a home trying to find drugs or some other illegal thing. Where do we draw the line? What does the Constitution allow us to do? In today's world, 25,000 people per year die because of alcohol. One of those people happened to be a son of Marion Stokes. After that incident, Marion Stokes created MADD, or Mothers Against Drunk Driving. She is strongly against driving under the influence and believes it is an excellent idea to randomly stop cars to administer breathalyzer tests. The question still remains, does randomly stopping cars brake the laws of the Constitution? Should we let this happen? The Fourth Amendment does protect people from being violated without a warrant. However, the Primary Act gives permission to the police to do what they need to get more drunk ...
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
There are two sides to every Proposition because there is some good and some bad from voting or not voting this in to effect. Some Californians thought Proposition 13 was a very good idea because it restricted property taxes to the maximum rate of 1 %, which made some people happy because they were in fear of losing their house because they could not pay the taxes. This in effect took away from the schools that were in desperate need of funds for programs like music, art and other programs.
The New York City Police Department enacted a stop and frisk program was enacted to ensure the safety of pedestrians and the safety of the entire city. Stop and frisk is a practice which police officers stop and question hundreds of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband. Those who are found to be carrying any weapons or illegal substances are placed under arrest, taken to the station for booking, and if needed given a summons to appear in front of a judge at a later date. The NYPD’s rules for stop and frisk are based on the United States Supreme Courts decision in Terry v. Ohio. The ruling in Terry v. Ohio held that search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment, is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. If the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous”, an arrest is justified (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, at 30).
The 4th amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If it is violated by the government, all evidence found by the unlawful search and seizure must be excluded as per the exclusionary rule which serves as a remedy for 4th amendment violations. Before a remedy can be given for violation of the 4th amendment, a court must determine whether the 4th amendment is applicable to a certain case.
The stop-and-frisk policy could be considered a big controversy facing New York in recent times. The whole concept behind this stopping-and-frisking is the police officer, with reasonable suspicion of some crime committed or about to be committed, stops a pedestrian, questions them, then if needed frisks the person. This policy started gaining public attention back in 1968 from the Terry v. Ohio case. A police officer saw the three men casing a store and he believed they were going to rob the store; this led to him stopping and frisking them. After frisking them, he found a pistol and took the weapon from the men. The men then cried foul and claimed they were unconstitutionally targeted and frisked.
Being suspicious about someone is not necessarily bad for police officers, as long as you have a reason to suspect. For example, have you ever seen a person that you have never seen before, walk by your neighborhood? Law enforcement officers patrol the streets making sure there isn’t anything suspicious going on. There have been cases were the police have been accused of stopping people over for no reason. Some say they were racially profiled. Whatever the case is, police have to have reasonable suspicion to stop someone.
The right of the 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. Constitutional Amendments
...t severely reduced the amount of property taxes collected and thus diminished funding for California's education system. Although, voters intended to reduce state government interference in local governance, the proposition had the opposite effect. The shortfall in tax revenue made it necessary for the State to provide aid to local governments to keep public safety, welfare programs, and education programs running. Property tax revenue at the county level decreased from thirty-three percent to only twelve percent after the implementation of Proposition 13.(Chapman 1998) The allotment of aid means that the state has greater control over how money is allocated and spent, while cities were able to transfer lost revenue onto residents through service fees, counties had to turn to state and federal funding to provide for public safety and public assistance programs.
As of today police officers are required to get a warrant to search any kind of property of the individual being arrested. These warrants require probable cause for the search of specific properties issued by an impartial judge. Those rights are protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Over the years, the United States Court has made exceptions to these requirements, which essentially allow the police to search certain types of property without a warrant and infuriating a lot of citizens. One of the big conflicts that citizens and officers are facing is case of Cellphones and smart phones, until now, the Court had not addressed whether this fit into an exceptions. I strongly believe that the rights of citizens should be preserved and a warrant must be issued in order to go through any information on any kind of phones.
The evolution of the government of Ancient roman civilization from its origins through the fall of the Roman empire can be categorized into 3 states. The first state was the Roman Kingdom which was governed by a monarchy, where the kings had absolute and sole power. The second state was the Roman Republic, which was governed by a republic where citizens elected representatives to rule. The third and final state was the Roman Empire which was governed by autocracy, there were still two branches of government the Senate and the Emperor but the Emperor had total power. When Emperor Diocletian ruled during the third century he appointed Maximum as co-emperor to rule the west, which essentially started the fall of the Roman Empire.
Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.
Law Enforcement policy is designed to help law enforcement agencies cut down on the amount of crime in communities and give structure to the agency. It also helps lessen the number of certain cases in certain areas, as well as from a certain group of people. There are several policies that I disagree with, but there is one policy I will be discussing. Law enforcement officers sometimes stop and frisk people based on gender, race, financial status, and social ranking. It is a very controversial issue because anything dealing with race and ethnicity can cause a lot of disagreement and discord. According to a New York judge on dealing with the stop and frisk laws, "If you got proof of inappropriate racial profiling in a good constitutional case, why don't you bring a lawsuit? You can certainly mark it as related . . . . I am sure I am going to get in trouble for saying it, for $65 you can bring that lawsuit" (Carter, 2013, pp.4). The stop and frisk law is one reason I do not believe in law enforcement profiling. Even though some law enforcement officers allow personal feelings and power to allow them to not follow policy, some policies are not followed morally because I do not feel that officers should be allowed to frisk someone who is innocent and has not committed a crime because it takes the focus off real criminals and onto innocent people; it causes emotional stress. I know because I have been through this several times.
We recommend Vikram to use service quality framework (SERVQUAL) as a scale to measure and manage hotel guest’s perception of service quality in terms of five dimensions (session2 slide#45), which are (i) Reliability – OV employee’s ability to dependably and accurately perform the promised service to consistently delight its guests (ii) Assurance – Knowledge and courtesy of OV employees, and their ability to convey trust and confidence. (iii) Empathy – OV’s individualized attention and customized care it offers to its guests and understanding the customer to anticipate guest needs, wants and desires to enlighten the service. (iv)Tangibles – Refers to OV’s lavish tents and other physical facilities, equipment, pleasant appearance of OV personal, etc. (v) Responsiveness – OV’s willingness to help customers and provide prompt
The hotel industry performs within a saturated market, driven by customer loyalty and competitive pricing to stand-out. This competitive nature makes it extremely important to capitalise on strengths while improving on
The past decade has seen a proliferation of law enforcement security cameras in public areas, with central London having more cameras than any other city. In cities like New York, Los Angeles, and central London, cameras can be found at almost every intersection. Terrorist attacks have been a major basis for this significant increase in law enforcement security cameras; however, privacy advocates, along with many of the public, feel that it’s an invasion of privacy. People are concerned that all this video surveillance, which is continuously expanding, has created a “Big Brother” society, where people are constantly watched. This creates paranoia and unease for people that just want to go about living there private lives, without feeling that their every move is being watched. The increased presence of surveillance cameras is almost compared to George Orwell’s novel from 1984, where he imagined a future in which people would be monitored and controlled by the government. One question that needs to be asked is: does the benefits of law enforcement security cameras outweigh the negative sides to it? Although the invasion of privacy is a serious argument against law enforcement cameras; nevertheless, it should be seen as a valuable tool to help fight crime. As long as surveillance cameras are in public places and not in people's homes, privacy advocates should not be concerned.