![The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court [Paperback]]( http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FAYRoE69L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg ){kind=icon}
Juvenile Court in New Jersey
Juvenile cases in New Jersey differ greatly from cases involving adults. The goal of the juvenile justice system, the rights which juvenile defendants have, the procedures which police and courts must follow, the facilities in which juveniles are detained, the roles of the defense lawyer and the judge, and many other aspects of juvenile jurisprudence are all significantly different from the adult criminal system.
Even the Juvenile Court is separate. Juvenile cases are handled in the Family Division, not the Criminal Division, of Superior Court. In a growing number of counties, such as Essex, Family Court matters are heard in a separate building from the criminal courts.
The goal of Juvenile Court is to rehabilitate. By definition, the adult penal system contains an element of punishment. The juvenile system, on the other hand, is designed to rehabilitate the youth, rather than punish the criminal act. Thus, the case will not be called "State vs. Jane Doe", but "The State of New Jersey in the Interest of Jane Doe, a juvenile."
A juvenile case begins with a determination of probable cause. When a person under the age of 18 is accused of committing an offense, the matter is brought to a court's attention. This is usually the municipal court, and the matter is brought usually, although not always, by the police. Then, a judge or court official such as the Court Administrator or Clerk must determine that there is probable cause to think that the juvenile has been delinquent, s/he can be taken into custody.
Juvenile charges are brought in the county where the juvenile resides, rather than where the offense occurred. In appropriate cases, a judge will grant the juvenile's lawyer's motion to transfer the case to the county of the offense. While the New Jersey's twenty-one counties should strive for uniformity in the handling of juvenile cases, this is not always achieved.
Juveniles are not arrested; they are detained. They are, according to law, taken in into custody for their own protection. Parents or guardians must be notified without delay. Juveniles may not be detained in the same facility, or even the same police car, as adult suspects. They will be given a "detention hearing" by the morning following their detention to determine whether it will be safe to return the juvenile to the custody of the parent or guardian while the matter is pending.
While in custody, a juvenile is brought before a judge at least once every three weeks, to review the need for continued detention. Sometimes juveniles are released to home, but subject to home confinement, electronic monitoring, curfews, continued employment or school, or other conditions imposed by the court.
A form called a "5A Notice" is sent to the parent(s) or guardian early in the case. This is the Family Court's summons for the parent(s) and juvenile to appear and also to file an application for a Public Defender. The form is a bit confusing, and the various counties treat the 5A hearings differently.
A juvenile must have an attorney, and a Public Defender will be appointed for a juvenile whose family cannot afford to retain a "private" lawyer. Public defenders are lawyers who are available to low-income families at little or no cost. They are usually experienced in juvenile law and are familiar with the courts. Many of them are excellent lawyers. In most NJ counties defendants and their parent(s) or guardian(s) must appear at the "5A Hearing," even if they intend to hire a lawyer, as the state or the court may require "intake" information or procedures such as fingerprinting.
Juveniles have no right to a trial by jury; juvenile trials are heard by a judge without a jury. The rules of trial in juvenile court are different from adult court, and at sentencing, the judge has many options that are unavailable to adult defendants. Most juvenile cases are settled, however without a trial.
New Jersey's juvenile justice system provides many diverse options for rehabilitating the youth. The system strives to understand each defendant and to treat each as an individual. In counties such as Essex and Union, where there are several judges sitting in the Juvenile part, repeat offenders are usually scheduled to appear before the same judge, often with the same prosecutor. In appropriate cases, there are programs and plea bargains that allow for dismissals and downgrades, intensive supervision, probation, job training, substance abuse remediation, pyromania counseling, anger management, and much more. An experienced juvenile attorney can often help fashion a resolution that makes sense.
Not all juveniles are tried in juvenile court. Some are "waived up" to adult court where they receive adult court treatment and are exposed to adult penalties. Among the factors a court will consider in determining whether to waive a juvenile up to adult court are the gravity of the crime, the juvenile's age, history, gang affiliation, and the involvement of "adult" instrumentalities such as firearms, motor vehicles, and sexual activity. Offenders convicted as juveniles are not sent to prison, but to places with names like The Training School for Boys, and custodial juvenile sentences do not exceed five years. Cases that are waived up expose the youth to penalties ranging to twenty years in prison, and even more.
Juvenile records, that is, records of the juvenile offense, "disappear" once the juvenile turns eighteen. That is not exactly true - the records remain available for certain purposes, but may not generally be disclosed. Subject to some very rare exceptions, no employers, schools or government officials may inquire about a juvenile record. Juvenile records may be expunged, later on, in most cases. Consult an attorney.
Experienced New Jersey juvenile lawyers know that the juvenile justice system favors the youth who make efforts to improve, and who shows promise for a law-abiding future. Supportive families, success in school, part-time or full-time employment, involvement organized community, religious or athletic activities all suggest that the youth has a significant likelihood of rehabilitation. Juveniles with these advantages benefit most from the non-penal philosophy of the juvenile system.
Families seeking a private attorney should look for an attorney experienced in juvenile court matters. The family can help the case by appearing in court, by trying to keep the juvenile out of trouble, and by providing alternative activities and moral support to the juvenile. The juvenile's attorney should work towards a resolution that is realistic and rehabilitative, one that has a chance of succeeding. Sensitive handling of juvenile criminal matters may be the difference that saves an imperiled juvenile.
Juvenile Court in New Jersey
One Direction - Kiss You (Official)
Video Clips. Duration : 3.18 Mins.
One Direction - Kiss You (Official)
Music video by One Direction performing Kiss You. (C) 2013 Simco Limited under exclusive licence to Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited
One Direction - Kiss You (Official)
One Direction - Kiss You (Official)
One Direction - Kiss You (Official)
One Direction - Kiss You (Official)
No URL One Direction - Kiss You (Official)
Plessy vs Ferguson - African American History Essay
1892
The U.S. Supreme Court: the highest court in the land. Their job: to decide the constitutionality of cases. But is that what they are really doing? Can we trust that their decisions are just? Two important cases in history can help answer this question. A 1896 U.S. Supreme Court case, Plessy v. Ferguson, made facilities and schools separate based on race. In another case in 1954, Brown v. Board of Education, the court reversed its decision and said that separate was not equal. These two cases teach two lessons about the U.S. Supreme Court. Plessy shows that our justice system has failed at times to establish justice. Brown shows that even though the Court rules justly, justice isn't guaranteed.
Many events led up to Plessy v. Ferguson. For example: after the Congress withdrew federal troops from the South in 1877, conditions for blacks deteriorated. The government pushed blacks into an inferior position. The government took action to prevent blacks from voting immediately.
They embarked poll taxes, "grandfather clauses". They also segregated on trains, in parks, schools, restaurants, theaters, swimming pools, and even cemeteries. If blacks broke these segregation laws, they were likely to end up either in prison or dead!
The case of Plessy v. Ferguson was a very important case in American History because it enforced segregation even making it legal, and made segregation a concrete reality for the people of the United States. It began with a man called Homer Plessy. Plessy was 7/8 white and only had 1/8 drop of black blood in him, but under Louisiana law, was considered black. In 1890, Louisiana passed a law providing that "all railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in this state shall provide equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races, by providing two or more passenger coaches for each passenger train, or by dividing the passenger coaches by a partition so as to secure separate accommodations." Plessy believed that the law was unjust and so he challenged the law by refusing to leave the white railroad car. He was arrested and taken to trial. At this trial he argued that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. But he was found guilty. Plessy then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Louisiana. Again his case was upheld. Plessy appealed again in 1896 to the Supreme Court of the United States. Homer Plessy was found guilty once again. The impact of the court's decision was a harsh one. It created a reality that was a nightmare to many. Their lives would be changed dramatically. They would officially be separated and considered low down in society.
Plessy v. Ferguson was the law of the land until 1954, when it was finally, successfully overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. In 1954, a little girl named Linda Brown in Topeka, Kansas had to walk 5 miles to school. She didn't get recess and could not play with any of the other children who were all white. Her parents filed a case to the U.S. Supreme Court saying that there is no way blacks and whites could get equal education if they were separated. The court ruled that separate is not equal.
The amount of time between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education shows just how long it took to get justice for blacks from the Supreme Court. It amazes me that our government could even question if blacks have the right to justice. It should be basic knowledge for us to know that it is wrong to treat any people so unjustly. Just to prove my point here are some questions you can ask yourself: are blacks human beings just like whites? Do blacks and whites both have feelings and needs? And finally, is the only difference between blacks and whites is that they have a different complexion? I am confused as to why so many people, including Justices on our Supreme Court would not answer yes to all these questions. How could anyone who had any intelligence think it was acceptable to treat blacks differently?
Fortunately the Court did come to its senses in Brown v. Board of Education. Yet just because The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that separate is not equal it did not mean that blacks were automatically treated equally. After Brown v. Board of Education happened, there needed to be the Civil Rights Movement, in which many people were involved to push society to change. Two people who led the Civil Rights Movement were Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks. We must acknowledge that it wasn't only those people, there were others working and helping the same cause. There were many ways that they impacted The Civil Rights Movement. They gave speeches, wrote letters, led marches, held meetings and many other strategies. They also endured mental and physical hardships. Only through the Civil Rights Movement did the promise of Brown actually get achieved. These people were poor, wealthy, high class, low class, black, some white, short and tall. Basically, there was a wide range of different kinds of people. Not everyone automatically changed their frame of mind when The U.S. Supreme Court ruled separate is not equal. There were still many people out there who were racist and wanted to keep blacks in an inferior position.
Plessy vs Ferguson - African American History Essay
Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
Tube. Duration : 19.97 Mins.
Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
No URL Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
US Supreme Court Building
Address: 1 First Street Northeast, Washington DC
Architect: Cass Gilbert (he is best known for designing the Woolworth building in New York)
Height: 92 feet, or five floors
Construction began: October 13, 1932
Construction completed: 1935, It took 3 years
Cost to build: .74 million
Made of: Marble, mostly from Vermont, Georgia, and Alabama, but the marble for the 24 columns inside the courtroom were ordered special from Italy.
What is inside:
Basement: Maintenance, parking garage, mailroom
Ground floor: Cafeteria, gift shop, clerk's office
2nd floor: The Great Hall, the courtroom, conference room, all of the judge's chambers (except for one)
3rd floor: 1 judges chamber (she picked the one on the 3rd floor because it was bigger), the office of the decision reporter, legal office, law clerks offices, dining room, reading room
4th floor: library
5th floor: gym and basketball court
What is this building used for?
Inside there is only one courtroom, but it is the most powerful court in the whole country. If a case has already gone to trial somewhere else and nobody can seem to figure out what is fair, the case will go to the Supreme Court to solve the problem.
Why is it important?
When the colonists decided they wanted to become a country, the leaders got together and wrote The Constitution to make sure everyone was treated fairly. Each of the 50 states has its own law, but they all have to follow the laws of the country, too. Sometimes a law will be written in such a confusing way nobody can understand exactly what it means. The justices who work in the Supreme Court do not make new laws, they have the job of figuring out what the law says, and if the law is fair. The Supreme Court is there to make sure every person is guaranteed his or her constitutional rights. If a person has had a trial in another court, but the judge couldn't make a decision, or it doesn't seem like the decision was fair, the case will finally end up in the Supreme Court so that the judges who work there can make a final decision. All of the other courts in America have to follow what the Supreme Court says. It is important that all Americans, rich or poor, have equality. The Supreme Court makes sure that some people aren't treated worse just because they are a certain color or don't have a lot of money. Even The President has to listen to what the Supreme Court rules.
Interesting facts:
*The Supreme Court was around for 145 years before they finally build the building it has now. It used to move around all over the place until President Taft bugged congress to give it its own building.
*Some of the judges didn't like the new building because they were used to a small room, and the new building was too luxurious. One of the judges joked that he felt as if all of the judges should have to enter the courtroom riding on the backs of elephants
*It has its own police force, called The Supreme Court Police to protect the building and the people who live inside
*The front of the building says "Equal Justice Under The Law"*The side says, "Justice, the Guardian of Liberty"
*On November 8, 2005, a chunk of marble fell off the building onto the steps below. It weighed 172 pounds.
*On January 13, 2002, a wild fox got inside and nobody could catch it for more than a day.
*On the walls of the building are sculptures of people who have been important to law and justice throughout history.
*People are allowed to tour the building Monday-Friday, from 9:00-4:30.
US Supreme Court Building
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
Tube. Duration : 4.05 Mins.
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
8th Single 『Deeper Deeper / Nothing Helps』 SUZUKI SWIFT SPORT CM SONG Jan 09 , 2013 on sale iTunes URL: smarturl.it
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
No URL ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
The United States Mandatory Rule of Exclusion Is Due For a Make-Over: Discretionary Approach? Part 1
Introduction: The United States Exclusionary Rule
Contemporary constitutional provisions oftentimes integrate explicit boundaries or restrictions on the investigatory power of the police. These constitutional stipulations typically supplement guarantees aimed at ensuring fair standards in the criminal process, for those detained or charged with a crime (En 1) Most of these documents echo themes first articulated in the United States' Bill of Rights (En 2) and reiterated centuries later in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (En 3.)
These recent global developments are not surprising. The potential for tyranny is constant, even in modern societies. Throughout history, oppressive regimes have used their unlimited police powers to search the homes of political opponents, to detain dissidents without trial, to conduct "show trials" for political purposes, or to subject opponents to torture or other extreme forms of punishment. Limitless police powers take the greatest toll on a society's most vulnerable members: the young, the homeless, the poor, racial or ethnic minorities, and political dissidents. It must be recognized, however, that in modern society, crime is one of the greatest threats to individual safety. If a society is so crime ridden that its members live in a perpetual state of fear, the niceties of constitutional liberty may seem unimportant to the populace. Fear of crime and criminals provokes a demand for government action. These two competing concerns are the basis surrounding the idea of the Exclusionary Rule. It all begins when the police excesses yield inculpatory evidence against a criminal accused. When evidence has been obtained in contravention of the Constitution, two opposing concerns meet: society's interest in seeing that persons guilty of crime are detected, prosecuted, convicted and punished, and a concurrent societal interest in safeguarding individual liberties against unlawful or unconstitutional police conduct. (Dawson, The Exclusion of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence.)
In the United States, these differing principles are presently resolved in favor of individual liberty, through the use of the exclusionary rule.(EN6) This rule, created my case-law, is anything but "resolved." Since its creation, the rule has led to extensive litigation and a never-ending flow of academic commentary. The debate surrounding the issue has continued unabated in the United States for almost one hundred years.
The following dissertation will provide an in-depth look into the mandatory or automatic exclusionary rule doctrine of the United States. The following piece will present a detailed elucidation of the exclusionary rule as it stands today, as well as the history leading up to its inception together with the underlying reasons for its formulation. Furthermore, the benefits and detriments of the doctrine will be discussed, providing the views of both the proponents and opponents of the rule as well as an inquiry into the question of whether or not this Exclusionary Rule is really doing the job it was intended to do, specifically to deter future illegal police conduct. An investigation into the question of whether or not there needs to be other underlying policy reasons, aside from the deterrence of police misconduct rationale, for the application of the Exclusionary Rule, will also be conducted.
The piece will further explore beyond the borders of the United States and into Canada to observe how the idea of suppressing evidence obtained in violation of the individual's rights, is applied abroad. The piece will discuss differences in the application of the mandatory exclusionary rule in the United States and the discretionary exclusionary rule in Canada and will compare and contrast policy reasons underlying their respective application of evidence suppression rules.
The dissertation will argue for the codification of the current mandatory or automatic exclusionary rule doctrine of the United States to a discretionary exclusionary doctrine which is currently applied in Canada. Such an amendment will endow the United States with benefits far beyond the ones the current exclusionary rule provides, such as bequeathing remedies to the individuals whose rights have been violated as well as appropriate penalties for the violating conduct of the police.
The definition of the United States mandatory exclusionary rule
In order to deeply delve in to the critique of the Exclusionary Rule, it is vital to understand its definition, characteristics, and circumstances in which it is applied. In legal proceedings, the exclusionary rule prohibits the use of any evidence obtained in contravention of the U.S. Constitution. The rule is invoked when government authorities seize evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures. Evidence may be illegally obtained when government officials do not have a warrant to search an individual's premises or the warrant is defective. Law enforcement officers may also lack sufficient probable cause to arrest a person. In addition, the courts will automatically invoke the exclusionary rule when they find a violation of an individual's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or a violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Courts often refer to evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment as "tainted" or "the fruit of a poisonous tree." A criminal defendant who claims an unreasonable search and seizure is usually allowed to make the claims in a suppression hearing that is conducted before the trial. At this hearing the judge must determine what evidence will be suppressed, or excluded from trial.
This automatic exclusionary rule has 3 elements. First, there must be an illegal action by a police officer, or by someone acting as n agent of the police. Second, there must be evidence secured. The third element states that there must be a casual connection between the illegal action and the evidence secured. If the defense believes such an offense has taken place, the defense lawyer may file a motion to suppress the evidence. It is then up to the prosecutor to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence was collected without violating the defendant's Fourth amendment rights. If the prosecution fails to prove this case, the evidence will automatically be suppressed from the case-in-chief, and absolutely no consideration will be given to the probative value of that evidence, even if it may be the only evidence out there. With time, the courts, after realizing the broad scope of this mandatory rule, began to narrow its application. There are now three exceptions to the exclusionary rule. In these cases, while the situation meets the three elements needed to trigger the exclusionary rule, the evidence will be allowed anyway. The first exception is the Independent Source Doctrine. This exception was created in the Supreme Court case of Segura and Colon v U.S in 1984. In this situation, evidence is seized in two different physical ways. One of them is illegal, but the second seizure of the same evidence is legal. For example, if one were to photo-copy financial records without a warrant of someone suspected of embezzlement, but then later returned with a warrant and re-copied the information, that evidence would be allowed. The second exception is the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine. The case that added this exception was Nix vs. Williams, in 1984. This exception states that the evidence is seized in two different ways, but only one being physical. The evidence is secured physically by illegal means, but there is also a hypothetical seizure of the evidence that would not have been illegal. For example, if a dead body was buried, and the police violated a defendant's rights in order to force him to tell where the body was, this would be the illegal physical seizure. However, if there was a search for the body in progress that would have eventually crossed the area where the body was to be found, this would be the hypothetical seizure. The prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence would have been located by this hypothetical means had it not been sized illegally. The third and final exception is that of Good Faith, which was added in the Supreme Court cases of U.S. vs. Leon and Mass. vs. Sheppard, both in 1984. In this case, a police officer receives a warrant from a magistrate and acts on it to seize evidence. However, there may have been an error in allowing the police officer to have the warrant. Since the point of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct, and there would have been no misconduct by a police officer, the evidence would not be suppressed.
History of the rule
Between 1791 and 1914, the constitutionally guaranteed right of all citizens to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures remained virtually un-enforced by American courts. The Fourth Amendment had the words that warned the government not to engage in unreasonable searches and seizures, but lacked any means to restrain government officials from violating citizens' Fourth Amendment rights. Not until 1914 in Weeks v. United States, [FN4] did the U.S. Supreme Court recognize that if evidence can be illegally obtained "and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the Fourth Amendment... is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution." [] Thus, the United States faced the problem that, while the Fourth Amendment guaranteed protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the judicial system, as the primary protector of constitutional rights, did nothing to deter or punish unreasonable searches and seizures. To give value to the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Weeks, held that the Federal government and its agencies could not use illegally obtained evidence against the accused at trial. In other words, the Court established an exclusionary rule that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible at trial and applied it only to the Federal courts. [FN6] The Court propounded two central rationales for its adoption of the Exclusionary Rule. First, there was the need to protect citizens' Fourth Amendment rights by deterring government conduct that violated those rights. [FN7] Second, there was the need to preserve the integrity of the judicial system by refusing to sanction illegal police conduct: "To sanction such proceedings [where illegally obtained evidence is admitted] would be to affirm by judicial decision a manifest neglect if not an open defiance of the prohibitions of the Constitution, intended for the protection of the people against such unauthorized action." [FN8] While Weeks represented a significant development in enforcing Fourth Amendment rights, its limitation to federal courts greatly restricted the Rule's ability to enforce those rights.
Four decades later, in Mapp v. Ohio, [FN9] three police officers invaded Dollree Mapp's home. The officers knocked on her door and demanded entry. They suspected that someone they wanted to question was hiding inside. Mapp consulted her lawyer and refused to admit the officers. Later that day, four or more officers arrived at the home, which was still under surveillance by the original officers. The officers then finally and forcibly entered Mapp's home. About that time, Mapp's lawyer arrived at the home but was not permitted to see his client or to enter her house. Confronting the officers in her home, Mapp demanded to see their search warrant. After Mapp grabbed the purported warrant and placed it in her bosom, the officers forcibly recovered it from her. Mapp's arms were grabbed, twisted, forced into handcuffs, and she was dragged to her bedroom where she was forced to remain. The officers searched the entire floor, including Mapp's bedroom and the basement of her home. The officers found incriminating obscene materials and she was convicted of possession. Whether the officers had secured a warrant to search Mapp's home was subject to "considerable doubt," and no such warrant was produced at any subsequent legal proceeding. [FN10] Given the particularly egregious nature of the police misconduct, the Supreme Court felt compelled to bestow teeth to the Fourth Amendment by making the Exclusionary Rule, first enunciated in Weeks, applicable to the states.
In holding the Exclusionary Rule applicable to both state and federal courts, the Mapp Court decided to "close the only courtroom door remaining open to evidence secured by official lawlessness in flagrant abuse of that basic right, reserved to all persons as a specific guarantee against that very same unlawful conduct." [FN11] As in Weeks, the Mapp Court reiterated that without the Exclusionary Rule, the use of illegally obtained evidence to convict criminal defendants "tends to destroy the entire system of constitutional restraints on which the liberties of the people rest." [FN12]
Mapp reiterated the dual rationales enunciated in Weeks: protection of citizens' Fourth Amendment rights, and preservation of judicial integrity. [FN13] These dual rationales actually comprise only one justification behind The Exclusionary Rule: the recognition that allowing unrestricted use of illegally obtained evidence will not discourage violation of the constitutionally protected right.
Competing Concerns regarding the Exclusionary Rule in the United States
The Exclusionary Rule is certainly one of those controversial doctrines that caries with it its own share of proponents as well as detractors. When evidence has been obtained in contravention of the Constitution, the two opposing concerns meet: society's interest in seeing that persons guilty of crime are detected, prosecuted, convicted and punished, and a concurrent societal interest in safeguarding individual liberties against unlawful or unconstitutional police conduct. [FN5]. In the United States, these differing principles are presently resolved in favor of individual liberty, through the use of the exclusionary rule. [FN6] But the status of the American exclusionary rule is anything but "resolved." Since its creation, the rule has led to extensive litigation and a never-ending flow of academic commentary. The debate surrounding the issue has continued unabated in the United States for almost one hundred years.
As aforementioned, generally, two opposing viewpoints have emerged from all the debate concerning the exclusionary rule. There are those who want to abolish the exclusionary rule and those who wish to retain it. The critics of the rule are evidently more concerned with the idea of ensuring that the guilty are punished and kept in prisons than the view of making sure the constitutional rights and liberties of the people are kept intact. The proponents, contrary to the critics, are obviously more interested in making sure that the liberties of the people are protected, even though that may come at a price of letting the guilty go free. Opponents of the exclusionary rule argue that this extreme remedy is not required by the Constitution. They claim the rule is merely judicially created, fashioned to protect constitutional rights by deterring future police illegality. Critics complain that the exclusionary rule is not an effective deterrent and exacts a huge toll in lost convictions. According to critics, the rule's costs outweigh its negligible benefits. Therefore, it is invariably argued, the exclusionary rule should be replaced with some more effective and less costly alternative remedy.
In stark contrast, proponents of the exclusionary rule insist that it is mandated by the Constitution and serves as an effective deterrent. They argue that those who criticize its deterrent value fail to recognize that the rule is necessary to preserve judicial integrity and compensate individual victims of police illegality. Proponents complain that the rule's detractors mask a dissatisfaction with substantive constitutional guarantees, under an attack on the exclusionary remedy. If law enforcement obeys the constitutional rules, as they should, then there would be no illegally obtained evidence to be excluded. According to proponents, this remedy is matchless. No other device is equally capable of safeguarding the Constitution's guarantees in a criminal context.
The debate surrounding the exclusionary rule has been ongoing in the United States since the Weeks decision. Arguably, the historical debate is capable of being encapsulated into seven general criticisms and responses:
1) Criticism--The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered. [FN123]
Response--Criminals do not go free because the constable blundered, but rather because official compliance with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment makes it more difficult to catch criminals. It is not the exclusionary rule but the Fourth Amendment which imposes a cost in lost convictions. [FN124]
2) Criticism--The exclusionary rule serves to handcuff the police in their legitimate and important effort to enforce the criminal law. [FN125]
Response--It is the constitutional rule, not the exclusionary sanction, which imposes limits on the operation of the police. If the police abide by the Constitution, there would be no evidence to exclude. The exclusionary rule, by definition, operates only after incriminating evidence has been obtained and flaunts before us the costs we must pay for constitutional safeguards. [FN126]
3) Criticism--The exclusionary rule does not provide a remedy for innocent persons who are the victims of unconstitutional conduct. The rule exclusively serves to benefit the guilty. [FN127]
Response--The Fourth Amendment protects everyone against unreasonable searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule inures to the benefit of all by decreasing the likelihood that anyone, "innocent" or "guilty," will be subjected to an unconstitutional search or seizure. In this fashion, individual liberty is benefited on a general level by the rule.
Criticism--Suppression motions, in which defendants seek the benefit of the exclusionary rule, unnecessarily shift the focus of the trial away from the defendants' guilt or innocence. These hearings are costly and distract judges from other important matters. Finally, the court is not the proper forum to discipline police officers for their unconstitutional activities.
Response--Courts should be preoccupied with the manner in which evidence has been obtained, otherwise the Constitution's guarantees would be rendered meaningless. It is the courts that must assume the role of being the final arbiters of individual rights. Absent such judicial scrutiny, constitutional violations would go unnoticed. Similarly, without continual judicial review, the Constitution's guarantees would remain unarticulated and rarely defined. The Constitution would only be expounded in rare actions for assault, trespass and false imprisonment, and prosecutions for resisting arrest or obstructing the police in the execution of their duty. [FN130]
6) Criticism--The exclusionary rule confers a disproportionate benefit on a defendant. A relatively minor violation of the Constitution results in the exclusion of evidence and necessitates that a guilty defendant go free. This windfall is contrary to the idea of proportionality that is essential to the concept of justice.
Response--This criticism is only significant if one conceives the purpose of the rule to be compensation of the individual victim. [FN132] If the compensation rationale is used, however, the criticism remains inaccurate. A number of exceptions to the exclusionary rule have been created to ensure that all that is excluded is the evidence the police would not have found had they abided by the Constitution. The exclusionary rule does not confer immunity on a defendant against future prosecution; it simply restores him to the position he would have occupied had his constitutional rights not been violated.
Criticism--The exclusionary rule in the United States is anomalous; other democratic nations do not employ an exclusionary rule and they are arguably as free as the United States. [FN134]
Response--The United States is not alone in employing an exclusionary rule; a number of nations use exclusion of evidence as a means to safeguard individual rights. For instance, England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany and France all have some form of an exclusionary rule.
Problems with the United States mandatory exclusionary rule
Looking at the above arguments, it is clear that the opponents and proponents are completely at opposite sides of the spectrum in deciding an issue which appears to have two possible conclusions: a) to continue maintaining the current exclusionary rule of the United States or b) to abolish it altogether. However, careful consideration and research into this particular sphere can lead one to ask the question of whether or not there is a third alternative, one which would sit between automatic exclusion and admissibility of evidence. Perhaps this third approach would alleviate some of the competing concerns regarding the exclusionary rule currently implemented in the United States. However, prior to making an endeavor to formulate this third possible choice, it is vital to point out some of the quandaries with the current mandatory exclusionary rule.
The mandatory aspect is problematic
As stated above, the United States exclusionary rule is one of mandatory or automatic exclusion. This means that, even highly probative evidence will be suppressed if the police seize it illegally. Proponents of an exclusionary rule must concede that the costs of such a rule occasionally seem too harsh. If a defendant charged with murder is released because a relatively minor and unintended violation of his rights disclosed essential evidence, then it is difficult to deny that the rule occasionally exacts too high a price. The problem with the American exclusionary rule is that it is unable to effectively cope with such exceptional cases. Generally, the rule demands that evidence be excluded regardless of society's competing interest in not having a dangerous criminal released back into the community. This is a major problem.
The mandatory exclusionary rule does not do its job
What is the ob of the exclusionary rule? What was the chief purpose for its establishment in the United States? Mapp reiterated the dual rationales enunciated in Weeks: protection of citizens' Fourth Amendment rights, and preservation of judicial integrity. [FN13] These dual rationales actually comprise only one justification behind The Exclusionary Rule: the recognition that allowing unrestricted use of illegally obtained evidence will not discourage violation of the constitutionally protected right. It is evident that the true aim of the Exclusionary Rule is to deter future police violation of constitutionally protected rights. Specifically, excluding evidence illegally obtained will chasten the government official to the extent that he or she will not engage in similar conduct in the future. It is implicit that if the offending government official would not be deterred from future illegality, then application of the Rule would be inappropriate. Indeed, in a series of cases after Mapp, the Supreme Court held the Rule's application inappropriate where the exclusion would not deter future Fourth Amendment violations. In United States v. Calandra, [FN14] the Court declined to allow grand jury witnesses to refuse to answer questions based upon evidence illegally seized because the "incremental deterrent effect which might be achieved by extending the rule to grand jury proceedings is uncertain at best." [FN15] In United States v. Janis, [FN16] the Court permitted the use of evidence seized illegally by state officials in federal civil proceedings because the illegal conduct was not likely to be deterred by exclusion in that setting. [FN17] The Court cited two factors which made exclusion unnecessary *49in the Janis case. [FN18] First, since the evidence was suppressed in the state criminal trial, the officer had already been "punished" for violating the Fourth Amendment. [FN19] Second, since the evidence was also excludable at the federal criminal trial, the entire criminal enforcement process, which was the concern and duty of these officers, would be frustrated by the exclusion of the evidence in both proceedings. [FN20] Thus, the Exclusionary Rule accomplished its intended goal of deterrence in the criminal courts, and any further possible deterrent effect that exclusion from federal civil proceedings might cause would be outweighed by the societal costs imposed by the exclusion. [FN21] More recently, in United States v. Leon, [FN22] the Court found the Rule's application inapplicable when police officers reasonably relied on a search warrant. [FN23] Since the constitutional error in Leon was made by the magistrate in approving the search warrant, there was no police illegality and hence nothing to deter. [FN24] Furthermore, the Court held that suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the Exclusionary Rule. [FN25] Leon is a powerful mandate holding that judges should not exclude evidence unless exclusion would deter future illegal police conduct.
Therefore, it is beyond dispute that the Exclusionary Rule, and the focus of modern Supreme Court opinions construing the Exclusionary Rule, is the preservation of our constitutional rights through the deterrence of future police misconduct that violates those rights.
So is the exclusionary rule really deterring unconstitutional police seizure of evidence? For the Exclusionary Rule to deter future police misconduct, the exclusion of the evidence must be communicated to the offending officer, the officer must learn why it was excluded, and he or she must be provided with some incentive to improve his or her future performance. *55 Absent these steps, is there motivation for a police officer to conform his or her conduct to the dictates of the Fourth Amendment?
Deterrence from wrongful conduct will only occur if notice of that conduct is effectively communicated to the wrongdoer. However, despite this apparent common sense notion, the Exclusionary Rule contains no provision for any police "education." Indeed, whether the police officer who has violated a defendant's constitutional rights will ever learn that he or she has committed such a violation is, at best, uncertain. [FN48] For example, the most direct educational effect will be felt by those officers who attend the suppression hearing (perhaps because they must present evidence of their conduct) and actually hear the court's ruling on the motion. Even then, the basis of the ruling may not be clear to the officer, or she may feel that the result was the product of a misguided or even ill-conceived system, rather than the result of her misconduct. In any case, the offending officer often does not attend the suppression hearing, so no direct lesson is possible. Whether the police officer is made aware of his or her misconduct will then depend upon how effectively the prosecutor or police supervisors communicate with the involved officers. Thus any educational effect of the Exclusionary Rule is unpredictable and often left completely to chance. [FN49]
An additional impediment to the educational aspect of deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations lies in the failure to file many potential prosecutions that result from constitutionally flawed investigations. A prosecutor, strongly believing that critical evidence is the product of illegal police activity, is not likely to even file the case. In these situations, whether the police officer learns that he or she illegally seized a piece of evidence will depend upon how well the prosecutor or police supervisor communicates with the offending officer. Again, any such communication is haphazard at best.
Prior to a case even reaching a prosecutor, as the Supreme Court observed, the Exclusionary Rule "is powerless to deter invasions of constitutionally guaranteed rights where the police either have no interest in prosecuting or are willing to forgo successful prosecution in the interest of serving some other goal." [FN50] In other words, where police invade a citizen's Fourth Amendment rights, but do not prosecute that individual, *56 there is no outside review -- such as by a prosecutor or judge -- to inform the officer of the violation.
If the "educational" aspect of deterrence is too vague to reinforce the "right" and "wrong" ways to obtain evidence, among police officers, the "punitive" aspect of the Exclusionary Rule is even more questionable. This is because punishment for illegally obtaining evidence falls directly upon "the government" by forbidding the use of the illegally obtained evidence at trial. Such punishment does not fall upon the offending police officer and, subsequently, any punitive effect felt by the police officer will be fortuitous. The offending officer suffers no formal negative consequences for his or her illegal activity. To be sure, some police departments keep track of data involving illegal searches and seizures conducted by officers and may use the data in decisions concerning promotions, salary increases, and the like. In addition, officers who are found to have violated a defendant's constitutional rights, and who are aware of this finding, may feel responsible for a failed prosecution, and may suffer from loss of stature in the eyes of their colleagues. But because the punitive effect of the Exclusionary Rule reaches the offending officers only indirectly, if at all, it seriously compromises the ability to deter police misconduct. A police officer who has violated a defendant's rights is not held personally accountable for that violation. In fact, empirical studies support the view that the Rule has a minimal effect on the police officers' on-the-street behavior. This is the ironic effect of the American Exclusionary Rule: In essence, the present rule lacks the power to deter, even though deterrence is the primary objective cited by the Supreme Court for implementing and then retaining the Exclusionary Rule. [FN51]
Deterrence as sole purpose and exceptions are signs of backtracking
As stated above, American courts, in their effort to limit the broad application of the exclusionary rule, have focused on deterrence as the rule's sole justification. The emphasis on deterrence, however, has posed an impediment to alleviating the most troublesome aspect of the rule's operation. If deterrence is the exclusionary rule's only purpose, then dangerous criminals must go free, even if a constitutional violation was relatively minor or technical. This reasoning ignores the harmful effect that exclusion may occasionally have on the integrity of the courts. In a free society it is essential that the court command respect within the community, otherwise it will not be long before the authority of the court is diminished and the rule of law is threatened. Should this occur, the collective freedom of everyone within a society would be markedly diminished.
The other difficulty with the contemporary United States position is the judiciary's effort to scale back the rule's operation through the use of exceptions. These exceptions, as stated above, are rules which state that even when constitutional rights of the accused are violated in the obtainment of the evidence, they will still not be suppressed if one of the exceptions, such as the good faith exceptions applies.
The United States Mandatory Rule of Exclusion Is Due For a Make-Over: Discretionary Approach? Part 1
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
Tube. Duration : 4.05 Mins.
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
8th Single 『Deeper Deeper / Nothing Helps』 SUZUKI SWIFT SPORT CM SONG Jan 09 , 2013 on sale iTunes URL: smarturl.it
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
No URL ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
Plessy vs Ferguson - African American History Essay
1892
The U.S. Supreme Court: the highest court in the land. Their job: to decide the constitutionality of cases. But is that what they are really doing? Can we trust that their decisions are just? Two important cases in history can help answer this question. A 1896 U.S. Supreme Court case, Plessy v. Ferguson, made facilities and schools separate based on race. In another case in 1954, Brown v. Board of Education, the court reversed its decision and said that separate was not equal. These two cases teach two lessons about the U.S. Supreme Court. Plessy shows that our justice system has failed at times to establish justice. Brown shows that even though the Court rules justly, justice isn't guaranteed.
Many events led up to Plessy v. Ferguson. For example: after the Congress withdrew federal troops from the South in 1877, conditions for blacks deteriorated. The government pushed blacks into an inferior position. The government took action to prevent blacks from voting immediately.
They embarked poll taxes, "grandfather clauses". They also segregated on trains, in parks, schools, restaurants, theaters, swimming pools, and even cemeteries. If blacks broke these segregation laws, they were likely to end up either in prison or dead!
The case of Plessy v. Ferguson was a very important case in American History because it enforced segregation even making it legal, and made segregation a concrete reality for the people of the United States. It began with a man called Homer Plessy. Plessy was 7/8 white and only had 1/8 drop of black blood in him, but under Louisiana law, was considered black. In 1890, Louisiana passed a law providing that "all railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in this state shall provide equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races, by providing two or more passenger coaches for each passenger train, or by dividing the passenger coaches by a partition so as to secure separate accommodations." Plessy believed that the law was unjust and so he challenged the law by refusing to leave the white railroad car. He was arrested and taken to trial. At this trial he argued that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. But he was found guilty. Plessy then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Louisiana. Again his case was upheld. Plessy appealed again in 1896 to the Supreme Court of the United States. Homer Plessy was found guilty once again. The impact of the court's decision was a harsh one. It created a reality that was a nightmare to many. Their lives would be changed dramatically. They would officially be separated and considered low down in society.
Plessy v. Ferguson was the law of the land until 1954, when it was finally, successfully overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. In 1954, a little girl named Linda Brown in Topeka, Kansas had to walk 5 miles to school. She didn't get recess and could not play with any of the other children who were all white. Her parents filed a case to the U.S. Supreme Court saying that there is no way blacks and whites could get equal education if they were separated. The court ruled that separate is not equal.
The amount of time between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education shows just how long it took to get justice for blacks from the Supreme Court. It amazes me that our government could even question if blacks have the right to justice. It should be basic knowledge for us to know that it is wrong to treat any people so unjustly. Just to prove my point here are some questions you can ask yourself: are blacks human beings just like whites? Do blacks and whites both have feelings and needs? And finally, is the only difference between blacks and whites is that they have a different complexion? I am confused as to why so many people, including Justices on our Supreme Court would not answer yes to all these questions. How could anyone who had any intelligence think it was acceptable to treat blacks differently?
Fortunately the Court did come to its senses in Brown v. Board of Education. Yet just because The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that separate is not equal it did not mean that blacks were automatically treated equally. After Brown v. Board of Education happened, there needed to be the Civil Rights Movement, in which many people were involved to push society to change. Two people who led the Civil Rights Movement were Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks. We must acknowledge that it wasn't only those people, there were others working and helping the same cause. There were many ways that they impacted The Civil Rights Movement. They gave speeches, wrote letters, led marches, held meetings and many other strategies. They also endured mental and physical hardships. Only through the Civil Rights Movement did the promise of Brown actually get achieved. These people were poor, wealthy, high class, low class, black, some white, short and tall. Basically, there was a wide range of different kinds of people. Not everyone automatically changed their frame of mind when The U.S. Supreme Court ruled separate is not equal. There were still many people out there who were racist and wanted to keep blacks in an inferior position.
Plessy vs Ferguson - African American History Essay
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
Video Clips. Duration : 4.05 Mins.
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
8th Single 『Deeper Deeper / Nothing Helps』 SUZUKI SWIFT SPORT CM SONG Jan 09 , 2013 on sale iTunes URL: smarturl.it
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
No URL ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
Types of Arrest Warrants - A Look at Felony, Civil and Alias Arrest Warrants
A warrant of arrest is issued by the court ordering law enforcers to detain a person. Basically, arrest warrants are issued if there has been a crime that was committed and there is enough evidence to incriminate a suspect, and if the person named in the warrant committed the crime.
However, there is also warrant of arrests issued if the person in question failed to show up in court. For example, if you have outstanding parking tickets and you fail to pay for it or to show up for court to hear your case, then an arrest warrant may be issued in your name.
There are also search warrants that give the authority to search a person's premises. Although this is not necessarily an arrest warrant, if the authorities found narcotics or other evidence that point to a particular crime, they can automatically arrest you without the warrant of arrest.
Another type of warrant is called the bench warrant. This is basically issued to people who have skipped their next scheduled court appearance. The superior court warrant is also another type of warrant issued by the county court or the Supreme Court. This secures the appearance of the defendant on court who has been indicted.
These are the types of arrest warrants that are commonly used by the law. It is important to remember that having arrest warrants is a serious thing and that you should not try and ignore it. If you do not remember committing any crime, and you have an arrest warrant in your name, then you may want to try getting the arrest warrant reviewed as you may have been a victim of identity theft.
What's a Felony Warrant?
People don't understand that there are different kinds of warrants that can be issued by the court. One of which is called the felony warrant. Basically, if this type of warrant was issued, the person in the warrant can be arrested for felony charges or for crimes that he or she committed.
One example would be the case of Paula Poundstone who was arrested on a felony warrant. The charges were three counts of lewd acts on a 14 year old girl. She was also charged for endangering two unidentified girls and two boys by driving under the influence.
This is an example of a case where felony warrants can be issued. Although the three lewd acts charges were dropped, she underwent a 180 alcohol rehabilitation program.
Felony warrants lasts until the authority arrests the person who was charged with a particular felony act.
Felony warrants are public documents which can be legally and freely viewed by the public and is a serious type of warrant that should not be ignored. It is important that you should try searching for felony warrants in your name in order to make sure that you are free from any felony charges that you may not know about.
You have to consider that fact that people may use your identity and you may be charged with a crime under your name that was committed by another person who used your identity to commit the crime.
This is what felony warrant is all about. Lewd acts or conduct is just one type of crime that felony warrant may be filed against you.
What is a Civil Warrant?
There are a lot of people who fills out a civil warrant or a civil summons form. However, not many people know about it and that they often mistake it for an arrest warrant. So, just what is a civil warrant and where is it used?
Basically, a civil warrant is commonly issued in the small claims court when filing suit. The plaintiff will be requested to fill out a civil warrant or a civil summons form. In this form, it will contain space for the details of the claim. If you are seeking for a money judgment, then you might want to prepare and file a type of civil warrant called the warrant in debt.
Another type of civil warrant that is commonly issued is called the warrant in detinue. This is used by the plaintiff in order to obtain a possession of a specific personal property that he or she considered to be wrongfully possessed or withheld by the defendant. These forms can be filled out by a non-lawyer who is representing him or herself.
The civil warrant is basically commonly used in the small claims court. In order to file it, you will need to give the court clerk the name of the defendant, the amount of your claim, the basis of the claim, the current address of the defendant, and the sufficient funds to pay the fees, such as the filing fee and the sheriff's fees in order to serve the warrant.
As you can see, the civil warrant is basically simple to understand. These warrants are basically used in the civil court and are commonly used by filing small claims.
What is an Alias Warrant?
You'll see that there are quite a lot of types of warrant. If you are studying law or that you have an interest with the law, it is important that you should know about the different types of warrants in order for you to become more informed and more aware about the proceedings of the law. Even if you are a regular person, having knowledge about the different kinds of warrant can help you in case you or someone you know has been issued with a type of warrant.
One type of warrant is called the alias warrant.
Basically, the alias warrant is a type of warrant that is issued by the court when no plea has been entered on the case you are involved in, particularly if you failed to appear in court. This type of warrant can be issued if you also fail to appear on the initial appearance on the citation or you have failed to appear on court on the scheduled court date.
You have to remember that when you receive and sign a citation, this is as good as a promise that you will appear in court. If you fail to appear, you will automatically have two cases instead of one. This additional offense is called Failure to Appear, which is under the Penal Code.
This type of warrant gives the authority to arrest you. You can bond out of jail by cash bond, bail bond, attorney bond, or PR bond.
As you can see, alias warrants should be taken seriously. You need to appear in court in person or by mail on the scheduled court date. Or else, you will be charged with an additional offense and an alias warrant will be issued on your name.
Types of Arrest Warrants - A Look at Felony, Civil and Alias Arrest Warrants
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
Tube. Duration : 4.05 Mins.
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
8th Single 『Deeper Deeper / Nothing Helps』 SUZUKI SWIFT SPORT CM SONG Jan 09 , 2013 on sale iTunes URL: smarturl.it
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
No URL ONE OK ROCK 「Deeper Deeper」
The 3 Main Types of Criminal Offences in Canada
In British Columbia there are 3 main types of criminal offences. They are (1) purely summary conviction offences, (2) purely indictable offences, and (3) hybrid offences.
These 3 types of offences are set out in the Criminal Code of Canada.
Purely summary conviction offences
The list of summary conviction offences is set out in section 553 of the Criminal Code. These are the most minor charges compared to indictable and hybrid offences. Examples include theft (under ,000) and mischief charges.
Purely indictable offences
Indictable offences are the most serious criminal offences. These offences are set out in section 469 of the Criminal Code. Examples of indictable offences include murder and treason.
Hybrid offences
Hybrid offences are all those not listed in either section 553 or 469 of the Criminal Code. The majority of criminal offences in Canada are hybrid.
What hybrid offence means is the prosecutor can choose whether to classify an offence as summary conviction or indictable. How a charge is classified determines how a charge is processed through the criminal court system.
Process: summary conviction vs. indictable
The two main differences are (1) the maximum punishments, and (2) the court process.
When the prosecutor has the option to choose (i.e. hybrid offence), the summary conviction maximum punishments are often less severe than indictable classification.
For example, an impaired driving charge (aka operating while impaired) is a hybrid offence where the prosecutor can choose to proceed summarily or by indictment. As an indictable offence, the maximum punishment is 5 years in jail; as a summary conviction offence, the maximum punishment is 18 months.
Another difference is the court process.
In British Columbia, criminal cases are processed and heard provincial courts and supreme courts. All trials in Provincial Court are heard by judge alone, whereas trials in Supreme Court may be heard by a judge alone or judge and jury.
Purely summary conviction offences (those listed in section 553 in the Criminal Code) are processed and heard only in Provincial Court. This means that an accused doesn't have the option for a jury or a preliminary inquiry.
If a charge is a hybrid offence, and the prosecutor classifies it as indictable, then the accused can choose whether to have the case processed and heard in Provincial Court or Supreme Court.
The main difference with Supreme Court is the option for a jury and preliminary inquiry (a pre-trial hearing where the prosecutor presents evidence to the court to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to continue against the accused).
If the prosecutor chooses to classify and proceed by indictment (i.e. indictable offence), then the accused chooses whether to have the case heard in Provincial Court or in Supreme Court by judge alone or judge and jury.
Purely indictable offences (those listed in section 469 of the Criminal Code) are processed and heard only in Supreme Court. The default trial mode is judge and jury; however, if the accused and prosecutor consent, the trial may be heard by judge alone.
That sets out the 3 types of criminal offences in British Columbia.
The 3 Main Types of Criminal Offences in Canada
Justin Timberlake - Suit & Tie (Audio) ft. JAY Z
Video Clips. Duration : 5.47 Mins.
Justin Timberlake - Suit & Tie (Audio) ft. JAY Z
BUY NOW: smarturl.it Music video by Justin Timberlake performing Suit & Tie featuring JAY Z. (C) 2012 RCA Records, a division of Sony Music Entertainment
Justin Timberlake - Suit & Tie (Audio) ft. JAY Z
Justin Timberlake - Suit & Tie (Audio) ft. JAY Z
Justin Timberlake - Suit & Tie (Audio) ft. JAY Z
Justin Timberlake - Suit & Tie (Audio) ft. JAY Z
No URL Justin Timberlake - Suit & Tie (Audio) ft. JAY Z
Which Parent is Entitled to Claim a Minor Child As a Dependency Exemption For Federal Tax Purposes?
In Rhode Island who is entitled to claim the minor child or children as Dependency Exemptions for Federal tax Purposes?
If there is no indication in a Divorce Final Judgment or Decision Pending Final Judgment or Property Settlement agreement as to who is entitled to claim the children as Dependency Exemptions then automatically the parent with Physical Placement / Physical Custody of the minor children is entitled to claim the child or children for Federal Tax purposes.
This article is for informational purposes only and should not be a substitute to seeking advice from a Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer, RI Family Attorney or Child Custody Lawyer.
If there is a Property Settlement, Decison Pending, Order or Final Judgment that adresses the issue then the parties should follow the order or contract as to which party claims the child as an exemption. If they are unhappy with the order or contract then they may be able to modify it. If a person fails to abide by the Property Settlement Agreement or Court Decree then there can be serious penalties and Repercussions in RI Family Court.
However, the IRS does not care about Rhode Island Family Court Orders, Decrees and Property Settlement Agreements! As far as the IRS is concerned, the parent with Physical Custody is entitled to claim the child regardless of any state court decrees and orders and regardless of indications to the contrary in a Property Settlement Agreement unless form 8332 is executed.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has developed a very bright line, clear and concise rule regarding who is entitled to claim a child as an exemption for Federal Income Tax Purposes. Treasury decision 9408 states that the parent with physical custody may claim the children as dependants regardless of the terms and conditions of any Property Settlement Agreement, order or Final Judgment unless the noncustodial parent submits form 8332 signed by the custodial parent.
Pursuant to Treasury Decision 9408: the parent with Physical Placement of a child or children is entitled to claim the exemption (s) unless the noncustodial parent appends form 8332 to their federal income tax form signed by the custodial parent for the particular tax year in question. It makes absolutely no difference to the IRS what any State Court Property Settlement Agreement, Contract, Order or judgement states!
The IRS has absolutely no interest in getting bogged down in a contentious and messy state Family Court dispute or divorce between feuding parents. The IRS only cares about collecting money. The IRS has no interest in being involved in a dispute between two ex spouses or ex boyfriends and girlfriends.
The IRS bright line rules and regulations should not motivate parents to ignore or refuse to abide by Property Settlement Agreements or RI State Court decrees! There can be serious repurcussions to not following orders and negotiated contractual agreements. If a person is unhappy with an order they should seek to modify it, if they qualify for a modification, rather than not follow it.
In some instances a parent can file in Rhode Island Family court and seek to nullify an order or contract allowing the noncustodial parent to claim the deduction when the noncustodial parent owes child support. It makes little to no sense that a person could claim an exemption when they are not paying Court ordered Child Support. However, a Parent needs to file in Court rather than taking the law into her or his own hands.
In RI, if a parent wrongfully claims a child in Contempt or Violation of a Court order, Property Settlement Agreement, Decision Pending Entry of Final Judgment or Final Judgement of Divorce than the aggrieved parent may seek relief from the Rhode Island Family Court. This relief could be a motion seeking damages or for contempt or other relief. The Rhode Island Family Court could order the parent who wrongfully claimed the exemption to file a modified tax form. The Family Court could order the parent who violated the order to pay damages or Attorneys / Lawyers fees to the aggrieved person. The Family Court could order other relief.
Therefore, it is prudent for a noncustodial parent who has an order or contract permitting the use of the dependency exemption for a particular year to request that the custodial parent sign IRS form 8332. The noncustodial parent who is entitled to claim the dependency exemption for the minor child should attach form 8332 to his or her federal tax form. If the custodial parent refuses to sign form 8332, the noncustodial parent may file a motion in Rhode Island Family Court asking that the custodial parent be ordered to sign the form or for contempt, Attorneys fees or other relief.
Legal Notice per Rules of Professional Responsibility:
The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all lawyers and attorneys in the general practice of law, but does not license or certify any lawyer / attorney as an expert or specialist in any field of practice.
Which Parent is Entitled to Claim a Minor Child As a Dependency Exemption For Federal Tax Purposes?
Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
Video Clips. Duration : 19.97 Mins.
Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
No URL Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
Keywords:
Supreme Court
Which Parent is Entitled to Claim a Minor Child As a Dependency Exemption For Federal Tax Purposes?
Which Parent is Entitled to Claim a Minor Child As a Dependency Exemption For Federal Tax Purposes?
Which Parent is Entitled to Claim a Minor Child As a Dependency Exemption For Federal Tax Purposes?
BUY NOW: smarturl.it Music video by Justin Timberlake performing Suit & Tie featuring JAY Z. (C) 2012 RCA Records, a division of Sony Music Entertainment
Tags:
Supreme Court
The 3 Main Types of Criminal Offences in Canada
Supreme Court
8th Single 『Deeper Deeper / Nothing Helps』 SUZUKI SWIFT SPORT CM SONG Jan 09 , 2013 on sale iTunes URL: smarturl.it
Keywords:
Supreme Court
Types of Arrest Warrants - A Look at Felony, Civil and Alias Arrest Warrants
Types of Arrest Warrants - A Look at Felony, Civil and Alias Arrest Warrants
Types of Arrest Warrants - A Look at Felony, Civil and Alias Arrest Warrants
8th Single 『Deeper Deeper / Nothing Helps』 SUZUKI SWIFT SPORT CM SONG Jan 09 , 2013 on sale iTunes URL: smarturl.it
Tags:
Supreme Court
Plessy vs Ferguson - African American History Essay
Plessy vs Ferguson - African American History Essay
Plessy vs Ferguson - African American History Essay
8th Single 『Deeper Deeper / Nothing Helps』 SUZUKI SWIFT SPORT CM SONG Jan 09 , 2013 on sale iTunes URL: smarturl.it
Tags:
Supreme Court
The United States Mandatory Rule of Exclusion Is Due For a Make-Over: Discretionary Approach? Part 1
The United States Mandatory Rule of Exclusion Is Due For a Make-Over: Discretionary Approach? Part 1
The United States Mandatory Rule of Exclusion Is Due For a Make-Over: Discretionary Approach? Part 1
8th Single 『Deeper Deeper / Nothing Helps』 SUZUKI SWIFT SPORT CM SONG Jan 09 , 2013 on sale iTunes URL: smarturl.it
Tags:
Supreme Court
US Supreme Court Building
Supreme Court
Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
Tags:
Supreme Court
Plessy vs Ferguson - African American History Essay
Plessy vs Ferguson - African American History Essay
Plessy vs Ferguson - African American History Essay
Music video by One Direction performing Kiss You. (C) 2013 Simco Limited under exclusive licence to Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited
Keywords:
Supreme Court
Juvenile Court in New Jersey
Supreme Court
No comments:
Post a Comment