This is based on who is telling the truth. The defendant denys being in the city at the time of the murder, but then a local newspaper states that he heard gunshots from inside his apartment the day of the murder (which would be impossible if he wasn't in the city at the same of the murder). There could also be a chance that the newspaper could be lying mainly because the defendant objected that the evidence was correct. In this case, the judge should take this into consideration especially when a local newpaper article announced that the defendant heard gunshots after saying that he was never in the city. So I would say, the newspaper article could be evidence to prove that the defendant is responsible for the murder.
INTERESTS PROTECTED
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "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." The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government. However, the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those done by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law. To claim violation of Fourth Amendment as the basis for suppressing a relevant evidence, the court had long required that the claimant must prove that he himself was the victim of an invasion of privacy to have a valid standing to claim protection under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court has departed from such requirement, issue of exclusion is to be determined solely upon a resolution of the substantive question whether the claimant's Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, which in turn requires that the claimant demonstrates a justifiable expectation of privacy, which was arbitrarily violated by the government. In general, most warrantless searches of private premises are prohibited under the Fourth Amendment, unless specific exception applies. For instance, a warrantless search may be lawful, if an officer has asked and is given consent to search; if the search is incident to a lawful arrest; if there is probable cause to search and there is exigent circumstance calling for the warrantless search. Exigent circumstances exist in situations where a situation where people are in imminent danger, where evidence faces imminent destruction, or prior to a suspect's imminent escape. On the other hand, warrantless search and seizure of properties are not illegal, if the objects being searched are in plain view. Further, warrantless seizure of abandoned property, or of properties on an open field do not violate Fourth Amendment, because it is considered that having expectation of privacy right to an abandoned property or to properties on an open field is not reasonable. However, in some states, there are some exception to this limitation, where some state authorities have granted protection to open fields. States can always establish higher standards for searches and seizures protection than what is required by the Fourth Amendment, but states cannot allow conducts that violate the Fourth Amendment. Where there was a violation of one’s fourth amendment rights by federal officials, A bivens action can be filed against federal law enforcement officials for damages, resulting from an unlawful search and seizure. Under the Bivens action, the claimant needs to prove that there has been a constitutional violation of the fourth amendment rights by federal officials acting under the color of law. However, the protection under the Fourth Amendment can be waived if one voluntarily consents to or does not object to evidence collected during a warrantless search or seizure.
Answer:
Explanation:
The Stamp Act was enacted to cause the colonists to pay the tax. This was represented by the stamp on various kinds of documents and papers. The colonists actually criticized the Stamp Act by calling it as taxation without representation because the government cannot generate tax without showing representation of goods and services in the Parliament. This lead to the adverse colonial reaction to this Act caused the boycott of British goods. This was also associated with the riots and attack of colonists over the tax collectors.
Answer:
Crime analysis. This type of information is available in every police department; it is obtained by plotting offenses on a wall map and organizing the information on crime reports for the major purpose of identifying patterns of criminal activity.
Intelligence analysis aids investigations by helping to target available resources and identifying information gaps to focus the investigation more clearly. It also helps to avoid duplication of effort and prevent straying into areas of no relevance.
