On the week 7 elimination episode of Dancing With the Stars, Pamela Anderson, the magically babelicious pop culture icon who reduced Tom Bergeron to a 12-year-old boy, said farewell to sequins, fringe, and the daily execution of splits. Her poise, ability to assume characters, and sweet nature will be missed. Honestly, it seemed like she knew she'd be gone. She was calm and cracking jokes, as if she'd already had a decent cry before the liiiiiive taping. Due to a vague-sounding injury, Pam got to close out her DWTS experience in a lovely pastel princess gown and perfect makeup instead of a black pleather raincoat and streaks of sweat. Hey, you gotta keep it classy, even on reality TV.
Your votes had set the stage for a shocking elimination! I wouldn't call Pam's oust that shocking, but it did provide the graphics department with a great excuse to splatter sliver lightning bolts all over the contestants' headshots. I have to say, when Tom said ''One of these couples will be in the bottom two'' and the audience gasped, I thought it would be Nicole and Derek. Alas, the ''fast, furious, and fabulous'' Erin and ''her Russian'' could not survive the unflattering bloodbath (of light) of the dreaded bottom two.
My favorite part of Tuesday's show was Niecy's previously taped outburst backstage. ''Why do people keep asking me that? Did I think .............
Read More:ezto.in
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Friday, March 6, 2009
Search and seizure is a legal procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems whereby police or other authorities and their agents, who
Search and seizure is a legal procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems whereby police or other authorities and their agents, who suspect that a crime has been committed, do a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence to the crime. Most countries have provisions in their constitutions that provide the public with the right to be free from "unreasonable" search and seizure. This right is generally based on the premise that everyone is entitled to a reasonable right to privacy. In practice, this constitutional right is regularly respected only in democracies.
Though interpretation may vary, this right usually requires law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before engaging in any form of search and seizure.
Though interpretation may vary, this right usually requires law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before engaging in any form of search and seizure.
In Canada, Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all individuals from unreasonable search and seizure.
In Canada, Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all individuals from unreasonable search and seizure. For a search to be "reasonable" it must be authorized by law, the law itself must be reasonable, and the manner in which the search was carried out must be reasonable (R. v. S.A.B., 2003 SCC 60). This means that the officer must be acting within the power of a valid statute, and it must be performed on the basis of there being "reasonable and probable grounds" that a crime has been committed.
United States
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures citizens' right to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures …" The amendment goes on to set forth the conditions under which a warrant may be issued: "no warrant 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." The text of the amendment is brief, and most of the law determining what constitutes an unlawful search and seizure is found in court rulings. The general rule under the U.S. Constitution is that a valid warrant is required for a valid search. There are, however, several exceptions to this rule.
Dareton police search the vehicle of a suspected drug smuggler in Wentworth, in the state of New South Wales, Australia, near the border with VictoriaFor instance, the owner of the property in question may consent to the search. The consent must be voluntary, but there is no clear test to determine voluntariness; rather, a court will consider the "totality of the circumstances" in assessing whether consent was voluntary. Police officers are not required to advise a suspect that he may refuse. There are also some circumstances in which a third party who has equal control, i.e. common authority, over the property may consent to a search.
When an individual does not possess a "reasonable expectation of privacy" that society is willing to acknowledge in a particular piece of property, any interference by the government with regard to that property is not considered a search for Fourth Amendment purposes, and a warrant is never required. For example, courts have found that a person does not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in information transferred to a third party, such as writing on the outside of an envelope sent through the mail or left for pick-up in an area where others might view it. While that does not mean that the person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of that envelope, the Court has held that one does not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy that society is willing to acknowledge in the contents of garbage left outside the curtilage of a home.
DEA investigators found $5.6 million hidden in a ceiling compartment of a truck during a seizure (Operations Reciprocity, 1997)There is also a lowered expectation of privacy inside of motor vehicles. This "automobile exception" has been summarized by St. Mary's University law scholar Professor Gerald Reamey in "Reamey's Rule" as "never, ever, ever put anything in your vehicle that you do not want the police to see", although the Supreme Court's analysis is somewhat more nuanced.[citation needed] Nevertheless, a 'bright line' has been drawn at the doorstep of person's homes, however, so that whenever the government intrudes inside, their action is considered a search for Fourth Amendment purpose and must always be accompanied by a search warrant (absent exigent circumstances).
Courts have also established an "exigent circumstances" exception to the warrant requirement. "Exigent circumstances" simply means that the officers must act quickly. Typically, this is because police have a reasonable belief that evidence is in imminent danger of being removed or destroyed. Exigent circumstances may also exist where there is a continuing danger, or where officers have a reasonable belief that people in need of assistance are present.
Certain limited searches are also allowed during an investigatory stop or incident to an arrest. These searches are called refined searches.
While the interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court are binding on all federal courts interpreting the U.S. Constitution, there is some variance in the specifics from state to state, for two reasons. First, if an issue has not been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, then a lower court makes a ruling of "first impression" on the issue, and sometimes two different lower courts will reach different interpretations. Second, virtually all state constitutions also contain provisions regarding search and seizure. Those provisions cannot reduce the protections offered by the U.S. Constitution, but they can provide additional protections such that a search deemed "reasonable" under the U.S. Constitution might nonetheless be unreasonable under the law of a particular state.
The primary remedy in illegal search cases is known as the "exclusionary rule". This means that any evidence obtained through an illegal search is excluded and cannot be used against the defendant at his or her trial. There are some narrow exceptions to this rule. For instance, if police officers acted in good faith--perhaps pursuant to a warrant that turned out to be invalid, but that the officers had believed valid at the time of the search--evidence may be admitted.
Further, under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, additional evidence discovered as a result of illegally obtained evidence is also inadmissible.
Dareton police search the vehicle of a suspected drug smuggler in Wentworth, in the state of New South Wales, Australia, near the border with VictoriaFor instance, the owner of the property in question may consent to the search. The consent must be voluntary, but there is no clear test to determine voluntariness; rather, a court will consider the "totality of the circumstances" in assessing whether consent was voluntary. Police officers are not required to advise a suspect that he may refuse. There are also some circumstances in which a third party who has equal control, i.e. common authority, over the property may consent to a search.
When an individual does not possess a "reasonable expectation of privacy" that society is willing to acknowledge in a particular piece of property, any interference by the government with regard to that property is not considered a search for Fourth Amendment purposes, and a warrant is never required. For example, courts have found that a person does not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in information transferred to a third party, such as writing on the outside of an envelope sent through the mail or left for pick-up in an area where others might view it. While that does not mean that the person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of that envelope, the Court has held that one does not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy that society is willing to acknowledge in the contents of garbage left outside the curtilage of a home.
DEA investigators found $5.6 million hidden in a ceiling compartment of a truck during a seizure (Operations Reciprocity, 1997)There is also a lowered expectation of privacy inside of motor vehicles. This "automobile exception" has been summarized by St. Mary's University law scholar Professor Gerald Reamey in "Reamey's Rule" as "never, ever, ever put anything in your vehicle that you do not want the police to see", although the Supreme Court's analysis is somewhat more nuanced.[citation needed] Nevertheless, a 'bright line' has been drawn at the doorstep of person's homes, however, so that whenever the government intrudes inside, their action is considered a search for Fourth Amendment purpose and must always be accompanied by a search warrant (absent exigent circumstances).
Courts have also established an "exigent circumstances" exception to the warrant requirement. "Exigent circumstances" simply means that the officers must act quickly. Typically, this is because police have a reasonable belief that evidence is in imminent danger of being removed or destroyed. Exigent circumstances may also exist where there is a continuing danger, or where officers have a reasonable belief that people in need of assistance are present.
Certain limited searches are also allowed during an investigatory stop or incident to an arrest. These searches are called refined searches.
While the interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court are binding on all federal courts interpreting the U.S. Constitution, there is some variance in the specifics from state to state, for two reasons. First, if an issue has not been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, then a lower court makes a ruling of "first impression" on the issue, and sometimes two different lower courts will reach different interpretations. Second, virtually all state constitutions also contain provisions regarding search and seizure. Those provisions cannot reduce the protections offered by the U.S. Constitution, but they can provide additional protections such that a search deemed "reasonable" under the U.S. Constitution might nonetheless be unreasonable under the law of a particular state.
The primary remedy in illegal search cases is known as the "exclusionary rule". This means that any evidence obtained through an illegal search is excluded and cannot be used against the defendant at his or her trial. There are some narrow exceptions to this rule. For instance, if police officers acted in good faith--perhaps pursuant to a warrant that turned out to be invalid, but that the officers had believed valid at the time of the search--evidence may be admitted.
Further, under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, additional evidence discovered as a result of illegally obtained evidence is also inadmissible.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
