Exclusionary Rule Essay Example for Free

Exclusionary Rule Essay The exclusionary rule is a legal procedure in the United States, which falls under the constitution. It protects citizens of the country in making sure that law enforcement officers are operating lawfully and that they abide by all search and seizure laws. It goes so far to protect the citizens of The United States that if a law enforcement officer illegally obtains evidence it can and most likely will be thrown out of the court. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the exclusionary rule, exploring its fallacies and importance while also including the history and evolution of the controversial exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is a very important legal principle in the United States and is crucial to keeping law enforcement and the judicial system in a fair balance with accordance to the United States Constitution. The exclusionary rule was never even thought about or existed until the early 20th century. Samaha (2012) states that before the exclusionary rule ever existed the only remedy for constitutional violations involving the exclusionary rule were private lawsuits. The framers of the constitution had it in their mind that judges would just handle each case as they see fitting to the nature of the situation. However this seemed not to work for quite  some time as there was a police misunderstanding of the 4th and 5th amendments figuratively speaking. It wasnt until 1914 when citizens of the United States began to receive their liberty back piece by piece. In the case of _Weeks v U.S.,_ federal officials raided his house in order to obtain evidence in a gambling case against Freemont Weeks. They had no warrant and no right to be in his house to seize any  of his possessions. So Freemont appealed and he won, in a way. The Supreme Court ruled to give back his belongings. They did not return contraband and this rule only applied to the federal law enforcement. Which is why this is the first hint of a trend towards a prominent and well known exclusionary rule. There was many Judges and government officials who still refused to side with Justice Edward White in the case of Freemont Weeks. For example, in the case of _People v. Defore_ Judge Cardozo mad his opinion very well-known and famous. According to Kamisar (2003) in the _People v. Defore_ case Judge Cardozo boasts his opinion very loudly and clearly stating that he would not adopt the exclusionary rule within New York. Kamisar (2003) then goes on to quote Judge Cardozo: excluding illegally seized evidence was not the only effective way to enforce the Fourth Amendment. Cardozo was not the last Judge or Justice to disagree with the new trend. The next case to disagree with Cardozo and many other opposing Judges would have to be _Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S._ (1920). Justice Department officers and a U.S. Marshall entered the lumber companys office and illegally obtained all of the companys documents. They then went on to make photo copies and subpoenaed the Silverthornes. When they refused to follow court orders they were taken into custody for contempt of court. Samaha (2012) states that According to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the governments search and seizure was an outrage'. This case expanded the exclusionary rule introducing the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. This doctrine bans the use of evidence indirectly based on an illegal government  action. Even after multiple court cases ruled in favor of the exclusionary many state legislatures still were not in agreement with the [exclusionary] rule. Some legislatures found ways around the fourth amendment. In the case of _Coolidge v. New Hampshire_ New Hampshires legislature was challenged on their warrant issuing practices. According to Lynch (2000) New Hampshire law was very controversial in the manner of how warrants were issued. The warrant-issuing power was vested in the Justice of the Peace. Now judges must issue warrants; but in the past it was very prominent for Justices of the Peace to fulfill this duty. In New Hampshire they vested the Justice of the Peace within the executive branch of the government. In other words, according to Lynch (2000) the police officers had subverted the Fourth Amendment by issuing search warrants to themselves. The Supreme Court ruled that New Hampshires practices were unconstitutional because the executive branch was issuing warrants to themselves. This practice was very opposing to the idea of checks and balances. This court case was a very historical one in which ruled in application with the separation of powers doctrine. It also further supported the exclusionary rule. One of the biggest cases in the history of the United States and the biggest turning point for the exclusionary rule was in the case of _Mapp v. Ohio._ In this case officers forcibly entered Miss Mapps home without a search warrant or consent and provided a false warrant. Before this case not all states adopted the exclusionary rule. In the dissent by Harlan, Frankfurter, and Whittaker (1961) they stated that the _Weeks_ exclusionary rule should also be enforced against the states. Lafave (2009) also touches on the case quoting the courts statements: [A]ll evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court. Estreicher, S. and Weick, D. P. (2010) make an extremely valid  and important point; stressing that the exclusionary rule is constitutionally required because it was the only effective available way to enforce the constitutional guaranty. This case is so historically significant because of this ru ling. Finally, nearly 50 years after the _Weeks_ case, the exclusionary rule applied to all states. Even though the rule applied to all states we still did not have every aspect of the rule covered. The Knock and Announce rule was always under controversy as to if the exclusionary rule was applicable in such situations. It wasnt until _Hudson v. Michigan_ when the courts clarified the issue. The police had a warrant to enter _Hudsons_ home and when they knocked and announced their presence they waited a mere three to five seconds before entering the premise. Hudson appealed stating his fourth amendment rights were violated because the officers did not follow Knock and Announce procedures. His evidence was suppressed, but later the appeal was reversed by Michigan Court of Appeals. According to Justice Scalia the waiting period of the officers had no connection to the discovery of the illegal drugs and weapons. Because of this case the Knock and Announce Rule was clarified by stating that the rule did not have any interest in preventing the government from taking evidence described in a warrant. Tomkovicz (2008) believes that this case was intended to further the restrictions on the exclusionary rule. I have to agree with Tomkovicz in this statement. Gittins (2007) also makes a valid argument in concerning the argument. He [Gittins] states that during the night hours residents will have a longer period of time in which they will be able to open the door. However the courts have found that very short periods of time (five seconds) can be reasonable wait times. Courts are still in the process of clarifying the exclusionary rule; although _Hudson v. Michigan_ added some amount of clarity to the issue. Lastly, and the most recent court case concerning the exclusionary rule is _Herring v. U.S._ in which a recalled arrest warrant was executed  accidently. The Coffee County Sheriffs Department were executing a warrant in which the county clerk found to be accurate. Upon arrest they soon learned the warrant was recalled some five months ago. Herring moved to suppress the evidence on the motion that his warrant was rescinded. Josephson (2009) states that the courts generally exclude the exclusionary rule when there are negligent errors amongst recordkeeping. The court denied Herrings motion for suppression because of the Good Faith Clause established in _U.S. v. Leon._ This is a significant case because of how it furthered the interpretation of the exclusionary rule. Josephson (2009) explains how this case interpreted the exclusionary rules main goal which is the deterrence of unconstitutional police conduct. Therefore by the police unknowingly executing what they thought to be an accurate warrant left the evidence applicable in courts. The exclusionary rule is intended to keep law enforcement and federal officials in check with the constitution. But often there is the controversial topic of whether or not the framers of the constitution intended for such a rule. The framers never had any motion to include an exclusionary rule into the fourth amendment. However, Geller (1975) makes an excellent observation stating that the framers didnt provide any remedies for a violation of the fourth amendment. Which brings me to my next topic of the controversy. Because the framers left no remedies for violations of the fourth amendment, the courts were left to create the exclusionary rule to deter law enforcement from violating citizens rights. Many argue  that this does not effectively deter officers. Geller (1975) argues that there is no significant evidence to support such claims. Geller (1975) also comments on alternatives declaring that Until data [is] available concerning the effect of these alternatives, it is impossible to state with any degree of certainty that these alternatives are either more effective or less effective than the exclusionary rule. The last major issue I found in Gellers (1975) journal came from a group called Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (AELE). They seem to believe the exclusionary rule is no longer necessary due to the high degree of police professionalism. AELE believe police violations are unintentional and because of their high degree of professionalism they act in Good Faith. Therefore petty mistakes allow evidence to be excluded and free criminals. Until there is a significant study that entails multiple well rounded solutions to the exclusionary rule; I do not see any possible alternatives. The exclusionary rule was created almost one hundred years ago. The rule will continue to be reformed and transformed as time goes on. Although there may be a substantial argument pertaining to the issue, we need the exclusionary rule. Undoubtedly the rule has an abundance of justifications compared to its fallacies. It was stated loud and clear by the framers some two hundred years ago what rights we as American people possess. The exclusionary rule is a major backbone of the judicial system of our country, it maintains the system of checks and balances keeping the American peoples rights prevalent and intact. The exclusionary rule is in working order, being reformed every day to protect our civil liberty and keep the integrity of our constitution set out by our own framers. Bibliography Estreicher, S. and Weick, D. P. (2010) Opting for a legislative alternative to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. UMKC Law Review. 78, 949. Gittins, J. (2007). Excluding the exclusionary rule. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2007, 451-481. Josephson, M. (2009). To exclude or not to exclude: The future of the exclusionary rule after Herring v. United States. Creighton Law Review, 43, 175-203. Kamisar, Y. (2003). In defense of the search and seizure exclusionary rule. Harvard Journal of Law Public Policy, 26(1), 119. Lafave, W. (2009). Recent developments: The smell of Herring: A critique of the Supreme Courts latest assault on the exclusionary rule. Journal of Criminal Law Criminology, 99(3), 757-787. Lynch, T. (2000). In defense of the exclusionary rule. Harvard Journal of Law Public Policy, 23(3), 711. Samaha, J. (2012). Criminal procedure (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth. Tomkovicz, J. (2008). Hudson v. Michigan and the Future of Fourth Amendment Exclusion Iowa Law Review, 93. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from http://www.law.uiowa.edu/documents/ilr/to Bibliography Geller W. ,Enforcing the Fourth Amendment: The Exclusionary Rule and Its Alternatives, 1975 Wash. U. L. Q. 621 (1975).

The Link Between Heart Disease and Cancer :: Exploratory Essays Research Papers

The Link Between Heart Disease and Cancer Recently, on a visit to my mothers' house, I pulled out my parents' wedding album. As I flipped through the pages of the wedding album, it was exciting to see pictures of my parents and our family members. Everyone seemed to be joyous except my grandmothers. They both had sad and angry expressions on their faces as their children made their vows to each other. I, too, was saddened as I noticed my paternal grandmother's figure because one of her breasts was wider, flatter and higher than her other breast. It appears that she had attempted to fill her bra cup with some type of soft cloth. I did not know that she had succumbed to breast cancer and had a radical mastectomy so early in her life. Although my maternal grandmother is still alive today, she has had advanced heart disease most of her life. We called my grandmother "GM" (grandmother). Although GM is a kind and gentle woman, she is quite temperamental. I believe these emotions and worry spike her towering blood pressure. As I continued to go through my parents' wedding album, I noticed that mostly everyone in my family has died of heart disease or cancer. Although my father had diabetes, he died of a massive heart attack. My great uncle died of prostate cancer and his wife died after having a massive heart attack. According to the 1995 Monthly Vital Statistics Report, heart disease and cancer are the leading causes of death in the United States; in fact, heart disease and cancer have been linked to diet and exercise. "I believe that 80 and 90 percent of cancers can be prevented because they are caused by environmental, dietary or nutritional factors," according to Dan Colbert, M.D. and author of Walking in Divine Health. The most common cancers in the United States-- colorectal cancer and breast cancer and prostate cancer--are linked to consumption of red meat, fats, and toxins in diet. In Leviticus 3:17, it is written, "This shall be a perpetual statue through out your generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor blood" (The New King James Bible).

Black Civil Rights and Feminist Rights

During the twentieth century, both the Civil Rights and the Women’s Rights movements had a comparable ambition in mind. They both wanted to gain the rights and opportunities that others had. In this research paper my goal is to compare and contrast both movements and how they went about chasing each of their goals, and at the same time express some of my viewpoints.The Black Civil Rights was a movement that began right when â€Å"Reconstruction† ended in the late 1870’s which granted all Americans to equal treatment under the law, as provided by the Fourteenth Amendment (Sidlow & Henschen, 99) I will be discussing certain examples that marked this movement significantly. For example, in the landmark of Plessey vs. Ferguson decision in 1896, the Supreme Court upheld the racist policy of segregation by legalizing â€Å"separate but equal† facilities for blacks and whites (Sidlow & Henschen, 101).The court then sentenced blacks to more than half a century of social inequality. Along with this certain act, came many more prominent movements that shaped the world today. The Selma to Montgomery March, for example, was a movement that both MLK Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership (SCLC) helped organized after the renowned Rosa Parks refused to move to the â€Å"colored section†. After being arrested and fined, many African Americans were spurred and began to organize a nine-year boycott (Sidlow & Henschen, 103).Through years of struggle the government proved unable to secure civil rights for Black people, and so activists started to take matters into their own hands in the early 1960s. The Black Civil Rights Movement initially fueled the Liberal Feminism Movement or also known as the Women’s Liberation. This movement refers to a series of campaigns promoting gender equality and at the same time, opposing the perpetuation of gender discrimination in all economic, political, legal and social structures.In 1966 the National Organization for Women (NOW) was founded by liberal feminists based on the NAACP with the aim of bringing civil rights to women where the legislation wasn’t being honored ( Sidlow & Henschen, 107). Furthermore, in 1969 the media caught on to the movement and brought a wider audience into it that in turn created more momentum to get their goals met alongside the goals of blacks. The movement, fueled by these successes, renewed a push for an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the Constitution (Sidlow & Henschen, 107).The amendment was then adopted in 1972 and states began adopting it, but adoption abruptly halted two years down the road and ultimately failed. The work of the Liberal Feminism Movement started to merge with the work of the Civil Rights Movement, as both were movements seeking similar rights for their respective minority groups. Blacks were largely the group violently pushed back against, and the group for which Affirmative Action was initially formed, but both movem ents were met with similar opposition as they played out at the same time.These movements both had a goal as extensive as racial equality since gender equality with skin of the same color felt like a task of the same size to the feminists and although the Civil Rights Movement accomplished this goal in manageable steps, the ultimate goal was equality with whites and equality with all women. The Feminism Movement used many of the same strategies and methods as the Civil Rights Movement, Nonviolence, for example, was known to be the best tactic at the time (Sidlow & Henschen, 103). Although anger would have been detrimental, nonviolence was still the tool of choice.For the Liberal Feminism Movement there was some room for angered nonviolence, but to be on par with the Civil Rights Movement they used nonviolence like the tool of the minority as well. Both the women of the Liberal Feminism Movement and blacks were minorities, but blacks were by far considered a definite minority due to skin color. Feminist fall into the majority white population and are therefore protected to some extent from undue harm by authorities. In conclusion, The Black Civil Rights were fighting with people not of color, while the Feminist movement was fighting against men.They both used nonviolence methods to best achieve their goals and were ultimately willing to do anything possible to reach them. Sex and race have both been an issue for many years and both are still factors in the political spectrum now a days that determine what â€Å"side† you belong to. Cases like, Plessey vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Education, and Rosa Parks, are all examples that these two movements brought about, both aiming for the same thing. As well as school integration, busing, abortion, and wage discrimination were all issues that they had to fight through for so long, to ultimately get what they wanted which was equality.

Thematic Analysis Data Driven Inductive And Sociological...

3. Data analysis Thematic analysis is applied to process the data from semi-structured interviews and policy documents. Thematic analysis is an encoding qualitative information process, involving discovering, interpreting and reporting themes within data (Boyatzis, 1998, Spencer et al., 2014). Braun and Clarke (2006) propose decisions of ‘inductive or deductive’, ‘semantic or interpretative’, and ‘realist or constructionist’ for applying thematic analysis methods. This thesis applies the data-driven inductive approach, which explores the model of home care in urban China to refine the ‘marketisation of care’ theory. I investigate the underlying and theorized idea at the interpretative level, while considering the sociocultural and structural contexts from the constructionist perspective. Referring to practical steps, this study follows the classical approach proposed by Zang and Wildemuth (2009): collecting data; defining the unit of analysis; making a coding scheme; testing the coding scheme on a sample of text; coding all text. I repeatedly read and thematically code the verbatim transcripts in Chinese, through which QSR Nvivo will be used to facilitate analysis. Through the process, I code themes, categories, and sub-categories transparently, coherently, and consistently. The case study approach includes three analysis levels, namely interpretational, structural, and reflective (Creswell, 2014; Tichapondwa, 2013). This study analyses data for themes, categories andShow MoreRelatedManaging Tensions Inherent Of Business6389 Words   |  26 PagesManaging Tensions Inherent in Business (For-profit) and Social (Non-profit) Entrepreneurial Activities Introduction Over the past several decades, entrepreneurship has attracted considerable attention of scholars from various disciplines. However, the majority of studies conducted on this emerging field have placed special emphasis on business entrepreneurship in which profit-oriented logic is dominant (e.g., Erikson, 2001; Dejardin, 2011; Campbell Mitchell, 2012). On the other hand, social