Best Answer

the 1978 supreme court case that related to the impropriety of the warrantless collection of physical evidence at a homicide scene is ?

User Avatar

Wiki User

10y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What 1978 Supreme Court case related to the impropriety of the warrantless collection of physical evidence at a homicide scene?
Write your answer...
Still have questions?
magnify glass
Continue Learning about American Government

Why did America change its mind about prohibition?

History in the United States of America during the early 1920s would change forever. On the early morning of January 16, 1919 America went dry. President Woodrow Wilson and many others saw drinking becoming a serious problem. People wanted prohibition because employers were going to work still drunk and working with a hangover. At home, life was more difficult for families. Husbands were becoming abusive to their wife and children's. Also crime started to occur more frequently, most of America's most serious problems centered on alcohol. The prohibition was enforced by states voting themselves dry. Many people started organizations like Anti-salons organization. But the main reason how the prohibition was passed was because of women. During this era women were able to vote. America changed its mind on alcohol because, American businesses were becoming slower, families were being abused, and lastly manly states voted on prohibition. America was changed because homicides were higher than ever before. Before the prohibition had begun, the homicide rate per 100,000 Americans was 7. In 1919 when America went dry, the murder rate per 100,000 Americans rose to 8.5. It was not until 1933, where America repealed prohibition was at 10 per 100,000 Americans. (Document B). America had changed prohibition because homicides were higher than they had been before. America had changed prohibition because the United States of America government could not be trusted. Important people in the government including congressmen and senators were not able to be trusted with alcohol. The men who made the prohibition were going against the law. They had become bootleggers. "How can you have the heart to prosecute a bootlegger, send a man to jail for six months or a year for selling a pint of a quart of whiskey, when you know for a fact the men who made the laws... are themselves patronizing bootleggers" (document D). America had changed prohibition because people in our own government were violating the very own laws they made. America had changed it thoughts because the prohibition law was really helping criminals. To begin, when the prohibition law was made it was intended to help Americans restore civilization. Actually the government was wrong. Hundreds of thousands of Americans were suffering and trying to escape the great depression, many other were happy. Gangster, racketeers, bootleggers, and dope sellers were making money off the prohibition. Many people saw criminals living the life, Americans were struggling to survive. This had to change. America had changed it mind on the prohibition law because the prohibition was helping criminals make money. America changed its mind on Prohibition because it made life hard for Americans. The government saw that homicide rates had jumped by 3 per 100,000 Americans. Also people knew that congressmen and senators were violating the laws that they had made to help America gain back civilization. Lastly, the prohibition law was actually helping criminals have a better life than Americans struggling. America changed its mind on prohibition because the prohibition was really hurting the nation

What are some recent right-to-die cases decided by the US Supreme Court?

BackgroundThe right to die first became a political issue in the 1990s, when pathologist Dr. Jack Kevorkian (infamously nicknamed Dr. Death), advocated for physician assisted suicide, and facilitated death for approximately 130 people. Kevorkian was prosecuted numerous times, but never convicted until he allowed the television news show 60 Minutes to air a videotape of him administering a lethal injection to Thomas Youk, a man in the final stages of ALS (also called Lou Gehrig's disease). Kevorkian publicly challenged prosecutors to charge him for the act, leading to the former doctor's conviction for second degree homicide in 1999. Kevorkian was paroled in 2007 on the condition that he not assist in further suicides, but has remained an active advocate of the movement.Although medically assisted suicide was controversial, Oregon was the first to pass a state law by ballot, the 1994 Death with Dignity Act, authorizing physicians to assist in hastening the death of terminally ill patients who met the following criteria:Must be 18 years old or olderMust be a legal resident of OregonMust be capable of making and communicating health care decisions him- or herselfMust be diagnosed with a terminal illness expected to result in death within six monthsMust make the request in the presence of two witness, one of whom may not be a doctorMust make a second request after 15 days, again in the presence of two witness, under the same conditions listed above.These rules were created to ensure patients' wishes were met without coercion or abuse, and that they were allowed time to reconsider the decision before death was carried out. As of 2006, 292 individuals had chosen to die with assistance.The Oregon state legislature attempted to repeal the law in 1997, but the measure failed.In 1997, Oregon was the only state allowing physician-assisted suicide, but patients and advocates in other states attempted to have the practice legalized. When their efforts failed in the state judicial system, several filed suit in federal district court, and two were eventually granted certiorari by the US Supreme Court.Washington et al. v Glucksburg, 521 US 702 (1997)Four physicians, three terminally ill patients, and a non-profit organization, asserted a liberty interest protected by the 14th Amendment Due Process clause and sued to overrule a state prohibition on the practice in federal court. In support of their argument, they cited Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 US 833 (1992), which held medical decisions were a private matter between physician and patient; and Cruzan v. Director of Missouri Department of Health, 497 US 261 (1990), which held that competent people were permitted to refuse medical treatment under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause.A District Court agreed with the petitioners, declaring a ban on assisted suicide was unconstitutional. This decision was affirmed by US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, where an 11-judge judicial panel considered the case en banc. the State of Washington appealed this decision to the US Supreme Court.In a 9-0 unanimous decision, the Court voted to reverse the lower courts and uphold the ban. Although both conservative and liberal justices agreed in judgment, their reasons for doing so differed.In the Court opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist cited 700 years of law and tradition banning assisted suicide, as well as the 1997 Federal Assisted Suicide Funding Restrictions Act, which prohibited the use of federal funds in support of physician-assisted suicide. The Court held there was no Due Process violation because death was not a fundamental liberty protected by the Constitution.Concurring in judgment only, Justice Souter expressed concern that legalizing suicide could result in abuse, and asserting that assisted suicide and euthanasia are too closely linked.The justices agreed that the legislation and regulation of such act properly fell under state's rights.Vacco v. Quill, 521 US 793 (1997)A group of New York physicians and terminally ill patients brought suit in federal court, contesting New York's law making assisting in a suicide a criminal activity. The party argued the ban on assisted suicide violated the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, asserting that 1) New York accords different treatment to competent terminally ill patients who wish to terminate their lives by self-administration of prescription drugs than to those who wish to hasten death by removing life support; and 2) the unequal treatment is not rationally related to any State interest.The District Court disagreed, but the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the lower court, agreeing with the citizens' argument. New York appealed the case to the US Supreme Court.The Court held, in a second 9-0 unanimous ruling, that the New York law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, citing differences between passively allowing death to occur naturally and deliberately causing death by action.Again, although concurring in judgment, the conservative and liberal factions' reasoning was consistent with that in Glucksburg.The Court didn't hear another right-to-die case until 2006.Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 US 243 (2006)In 2004, US Attorney General John Ashcroft (later replaced by Alberto Gonzales, whose name is on the case) attempted to expand the laws against illegal drug trafficking to include physicians who provided controlled substances to patients for the purpose of terminating life, on the grounds that termination of life did not "serve legitimate medical purposes."Oregon, whose voters had twice approved the measure, filed suit in federal court, seeking a permanent injunction against the federal government from applying drug trafficking laws to to legislated medical procedures. Ashcroft attempted to invoke the "Chevron deference," a colloquialism for the process where the Court accedes to federal departmental rules.In a 6-3 vote, the Court held that Ashcroft exceeded authority delegated to Congress to combat illegal drug activity by inappropriately applying those laws to medical practice. Although the most conservative members of the Court disagreed, the majority ruled that the practice of medicine was a State's right issue, not a power granted to the federal government. They granted a permanent injunction against Ashcroft's intended use of the federal law.In the few years following the 2006 ruling in favor of Oregon, the State of Washington passed a law modeled on Oregon's Death with Dignity Act (November 4, 2008). In the Washington statute, the physician may provide the means, but the patient is required to self-administer the lethal drugs.The State of Montana attempted to enact a similar law in December 2008, but the law was challenged and a decision is pending from the Montana Supreme Court. Lawmakers expect a ruling sometime in September 2009.For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Related questions

What do police do after a homicide?

after a homicide the homicide investigators and police block of the scene identify the body notify the family and look for prints and evidence.

Does the death penalty affect the homicide rate?

No, there is no clear substantiated evidence that the use of capital punishment is a deterrant to homicide.

Signs of evidence of homicide by stabbing?

Signs of evidence of stabbing in a homicide would be slit shaped wounds in the victim. Another sign could be excessive loss of blood from those wounds.

What do you need to prove someone is guilty of a homicide?

Enough evidence is needed to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the homicide.

Is a homicide crime scene search valid without warrant if suspects abandon property?

Yes. ANYTHING recoverable at a crime scene involving a homicide is collectible, and can be used as evidence.

Is Aileen Wuornos a sexual homicide offender?

She was not convicted as such. There's no evidence she raped the men she killed. She would be classified as just homicidal.

What are the responsibilities of a homicide detective?

1) To gather evidence to find the cause of death. 2) To find out whether or not the death was homicidal or suicidal. 3) If it was murder, to compile enough evidence to be able to charge a suspect with murder.

How do you use homicide in a sentence?

"Homicide" refers to a crime involving murder. Example : "The man committed homicide and was arrested and jailed."

What happens during a homicide scene?

Homicide means murder, so someone is murdered in a homicide scene.

If a gun was involved in a homicide and someone that didn't do the murder has it and get found with it can they be charged for murder?

This is a good example of circumstantial evidence; this is basically when the evidence is just a matter of "in the wrong place at the wrong time". If there was little other evidence besides it a prosecution would find it very difficult to get a trial, much less a conviction.

Is homicide considered as a disease?

No, homicide is considered a crime.

What is the antonym for homicide?

Antonyms for homicide are save or rescue.