At some point in your life, perhaps you have been involved in discussions about criminal lawyers, whether at cocktail parties, holiday parties, or as part of everyday conversation. And at that time, you probably criticized whether you are defending a defense attorney. For such criticisms, usually there are criminal attorneys not only a greedy attorney who guards someone, but also some people who are not careful about harming criminals once to others, if they are unconscious Protect even child abuse repeatedly. I also do not admit that all criminal defense attorneys are perfect just like many others. Unfortunately, however, almost all occupations are suffering from individuals consumed with excessive greed, ignoring the well-being of humanity, suffering from the lack of consciousness that leads to divergences between social practices and themselves There.
Nonetheless, it is important to remember that criminal defense attorneys are not only protecting 'criminals' but also depriving constitutional rights. To the average person, the import of such notices may not be so surprising for law students. Therefore, in future examples, some rights protected for the benefit of society are emphasized. The problem here is that the role of the government and the role of the individual on the detection and eradication of crime and the importance of the right secured in that person, house, paper, and effect are increasing. Specifically, the government is guaranteed to "people" under the amendment of Article 4 to protect us from "unfair reasons", "unfair search and seizure", regardless of whether or not it was declared Invade into the right.
On many different occasions, there was a question as to why police officers could place criminals free by the criminal justice system because police officers placed bodies and murder weapons in places where officers were not present. The obvious objection here is that these people are not familiar with the protection from the government that our framework had in mind when creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 4 th revision proposal protects us from officials simply by going into housework or looking around wedding ceremonies, regardless of whether there was any doubt that the criminal act actually occurred.
Rights belong to "person" including both "guilty" and "innocent". In this way, when an individual says, "A person who care if it breaks into a house, first do not sell drugs", remember that there is a possibility of entering your home Is important. Most of us, including ourselves, do not care whether criminal rights are infringed or not. The important point here is that if the law enforcement agency knows unlimited, the whole innocent person's rights will be infringed. Criminal lawyers are protecting their rights through criminal clients, as the mistakes committed when officials invade innocent houses have not been filed litigens frequently.
For example, in the Supreme Court (Bond v. US (2000)), despite the officers discovering drugs in the passenger bag of the bus, the Supreme Court ("Court") inspected the medicine by the police officers on the bus It is not permitted to do, exploring passenger bags without doubt about all kinds of criminal acts. This may seem trivial for many people but if you have something of intimate or sensitive nature in your bag, no one knows (eg for personal illness Prescription drugs).
Likewise, when a policeman tried to examine the interior of a suspected marijuana using the thermal imaging device in detail, without a search warrant, the court violated the suspect's fourth right to revise Kyllo v arbitrarily decided. US (2001)). Despite the fact that the suspect actually bred marijuana, the court for many years supported the protection of the "home" and refined it as an official. Ability to gain deep knowledge of events in the family, such as "a lady at home takes a daily sauna and bathtub". Essentially, such a ruling is acting on an untrusted anonymous tip, or even less, that simply prohibits agents from sitting outside their homes looking through the wall.
The court also holds the court's possession of Riverside v McLaughlin County (1991) that the court judged that the cause should be investigated within 48 hours after being arrested by the arrested individual. In other words, in most cases this rule makes it impossible for officers to arrest you without doubting and to detain you indefinitely despite the fact that officers are not performing criminal acts (note: Delay exceeds 48 hours, at which point the burden will shift to the government to prove that genuine emergencies and extraordinary circumstances have been delayed.)
Steagald v. In US (1981), the court did not acknowledge the evidence in the defendant's house, instead of entering the guardian's house to search for the fugitive using the arrest warrant of the fugitive, but against the defender It was used. Again, some people may express what this is describing, but the big picture here is comfortable for officials to enter your home and search for your greetings It is to ask if there is. Your relatives. Depending on such privacy issues, the court revealed that the police will implement procedures such as the police having to obtain the arrest warrant of the suspect and the search warrant of the third party's residence did.
The court deals with the problem of general crime management obstacles in cities in Indianapolis vs. Edmund City (2000). Indianapolis police officers had stopped the car without looking into the vehicle to look for signs of injuries and doubt that the drug detection dog will walk around the car to try to detect smuggled items. Certain roadblocks continue to be supported in the past (eg, Martinez-Fuerte (1976) border guard in the US, Michigan DUI detection, State Police v. Sitz (1990) Illinois vs. Lidter (2004) Information to aid the police in searching particularly known perpetrators of crime), the primary purpose of Edmund 's general criminal management was deemed non - customary. Essentially, this ruling prohibits police from stopping all vehicles on the road due to suspicious invasive "traffic" suspension for various periods.
In a landmark case involving criminal proceedings, the court ruled that exclusion rules (rules to rule out illegal evidence) apply to the state and federal government under the fourth revised provision (Mapp v. Ohio ( 1961)). In this case, officials mistakenly believed that the defender had fugitives at home based on the hints they received. Police officers went to their homes to demand entry and refused to be brought without a warrant after being advised by lawyers. After that, more officers arrived, returned home, abandoned the paper that claimed to be an investigation warrant (this paper has never been trial-produced). After all, the defense was detained, and the officers found a trunk containing material of "lascivious and obscene", but no fugitives were found. That material was then offered to the defender. The court alleges that the exclusion rule applies to state lawsuits and prohibits state police officials from illegally seizing evidence and using it in court against that individual. Clark Judge,[n] We are going to destroy the government faster than if something could not hide our law, and in case of bad we ignore the charter of our existence. " In this case, however, it is reasonable to make an exceptional rule (for example closed evidence impeaching Havens (1980) cross test, warrant wrongfully committing v. Leon of the United States of America (1984) Relying officials) Whether or not to agree with the exception, however, should be welcomed by most, if not all, of the rules of the general that the laws that govern the state should be obeyed.
Recently, the lower court may sometimes have no rational suspicion, sometimes whether the officer has the right to install GPS tracking devices on individual vehicles without a warrant. In the DC circuit of Washington DC (2010) recently held in the United States, this practice which keeps on tracking for a long time did not obtain a warrant, so it violated the defendant's privacy right and the fourth revision clause. On the other hand, the Seventh Circuit Circuit Court of Appeals and the Ninth Circuit of the Circumference of Circuit have endorsed law enforcement laws that do not threaten the rights of article 4 of personal amendment (US Garcia (2007) vs. US Fan Pin - See Moreno (2010)))). As a recent legal issue, the Supreme Court may resolve the scope and constitutionality of the new survey procedures being implemented at airports throughout the country in the near future. Currently, the court has not decided the case on more intensive searching used since 9/11.
At this time it is not clear where the majority of the lower courts or the Supreme Court will fall on these two relatively new problems. It is not clear how the subsequent major legal problems will occur. However, one obvious thing is that if an opportunity arises, the criminal lawyer will protect his / her client and "people" 's right.
EmoticonEmoticon