Answer:
The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona established that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, the rule does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza.
Answer: How is the rule of law related to the protection of human rights?
The rule of law, based on human rights, underpins peace and security. ... The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “If man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression […] human rights should be protected by the rule of law.”
Answer: C for Constitution
Explanation:
Answer:
The ruling was made by a lower court than the court hearing the current case.
Some of the facts of the original case are significantly different than the current case.
The judge in the original case did not have jurisdiction to try the case.
Explanation:
1, 5,4
