No. You may be carrying it because you went out with your buddy the night before and he gave it to you for safekeeping or many other reasons. We shouldn't assume the worst and judge and punish someone for it.
A warrant will be issued on to an accused. The police pick up that individual and then they have the option of having the warrant endorsed to allow them to release the accused on a police issued process to promise to appear in court on a future appearance. There is a section in the original warrant labelled 'Endorsement of Warrant". This section is then signed.
Rainbow/PUSH is a non-profit organization formed as a merger of two non- profit organizations - Operation PUSH (People United to Save Humanity) and the National Rainbow Coalition- founded by Jesse Jackson. The organizations pursue Social Justice, Civil Rights, and political Activism.
Go to trial with proof that you do not own a dog, or that your dog was not out at the time that the citation was issued.
somme research says that yes you can but as of yet no one is sure
but most likely i would say no
The only means that one can use a birth certificate to pay bills is claims as proof of identity to garner access to existing bank accounts and or open a bank account as these documents are vital to obtain a legal photo I.D.
Now under some old colony laws the right of birth enables also the access to government assistance or application of such to receive money to pay for bills in those days a govt official would validate a vendor to accept vital goods for life (this is still viable only to FEMA as the approved merchant or bill collector must document offerings if properly registered with govt). If one doesn't have proper I.D. for issues such as stolen wallet with I.D. and or loss via a home fire and/or etc. I would say yes only in certain situations of the most extreme consequences such as a natural disaster where the documentation is used to receive vouchers to pay for recover only in situations such as a natural disaster through FEMA.
But if no incidence of natural disaster or if not applying through a government social services agency then NO, no retailer and or bill collector is currently authorized to accept a birth certificate as it's the one area of proof of Identity - it's best not to openly display such a document that secures your identity in cases of identity fraud or open yourself of having this document compromised by open display to others that may or may not take content of information pertained in order to commit an act of identity fraud against you.
Lost property is often turned over to the police department. Its very common for a citizen to hand over a knapsack, or wallet, or a cell phone.
When property of value is turned over, there are three possible choices for the officer:
1. Throw it out. This is not really an "official" or Police approved method of dealing with found property, but if someone turns over a used sock, well its garbage. You aren't going to catalogue it or look for its owner. The value of the item will be taken into consideration. And trust me, you would be surprised what some citizens would try to turn over....
2. Catalogue it and file the found property report. It's a report commenting on the specifics of the item, the finder and the location/time it was found. It gets stored until the rightful owner claims it, or a predetermined time passes.
3. Return it to the owner. Now, how would an officer do this? Well, he would have to look through the item.
In answer to your specific question, an officer is doing his job when he is looking through a lost phone. He is attempting to find some kind of identifier to establish the owner. The officer may even start calling people in the contact list of the phone. If during this point he uncovers some information of a sensitive nature, or of criminal nature, he has been doing his job in good faith. Any investigation that is started through this incident is legitimate, and fault cannot be placed on the officer.
In looking to the owner's information, the police officer finds something that MAY be criminal, that information CANNOT be used as evidence against the accused because the information was obtained from the accused personal property without his consent.
Not sure when this answer was last improved, but, in US v. FLORES-LOPEZ, the Seventh Crcuit Court of Appeals, ruled that Warrantless Searches of cell phones is permitted. -- Demsd
The East Louisiana Railroad Conductor who punched Homer Plessy's ticket asked if he was "white or colored." Plessy responded that he was "colored," but refused to move to the car designated for African-American travelers.
Plessy was a member of the New Orleans' Citizens' Committee that organized challenges to segregation laws, and deliberately violated Louisiana's Separate Car Act of 1890 in order to force a legal confrontation over laws that abrogated the principles of the 13th and 14th Amendments.
The Separate Car Act required railroad companies traveling within the state of Louisiana to provide separate travel accommodations for whites and African-Americans, preventing the races from co-mingling.
Home Plessy was an "Octoroon," in New Orlean's parlance, someone who had a single African-American grandparent, and looked white. He would not have been challenged as "colored" but for the Citizen's Committee pre-arranging his arrest with the East Louisiana Railroad Co. The railroad companies also wanted to overturn the law because they believed it was bad for business, so the company agreed to help stage a confrontation.
When the conductor walked through the "whites-only" car, he stopped to examine Plessy's first-class ticket, and asked whether the man was black or white. Plessy replied that he was black, but refused to remove himself to the African-American car. The Citizens' Committee had hired a private detective to ensure Plessy was detained; the detective took Plessy to the New Orleans' Parish jail.
To view a picture of Homer Plessy, see Related Links, below.
Jago grahak, jago" was the tag-line of an advertising campaign in Siliguri, India, advising consumers of their rights and means of getting help.
This is a point of contention. The American University Center for Social Media video "Remix Culture" (link below) is a good discussion of the issues.
The diminutive of a bull is a bullock.
A person is "under arrest" when a police officer charges them with a crime and chooses to take them to the police station to be processed for it. For example, if someone commits a crime, they are technically under arrest when a police officer witnesses the crime or has a warrant for the arrest and tells the criminal "You are under arrest." Typical procedure after this is to put handcuffs on the criminal and read them their Miranda rights (you have the right to remain silent etc). Handcuffs alone do not mean arrest, but i'm pretty sure its illegal for a police officer to handcuff someone without grounds to arrest them.
As a side note, the person doing the arrest does not have to be a sworn in police officer. In Citizen's arrest cases, anyone with arresting powers like a bounty hunter can also place someone under arrest.
It all depends on your definition of "stalk and harass." If you are a perpetrator or "person of interest" you may view it that way, but they are just doing their job, gathering evidence, and trying to catch you.
yes the cane should be brought back into schools and here is why
In schools there are bullies who torment their classmates for fun, research proves that most teachers cannot control the classroom environment, we are producing a generation that has not been properly taught right from wrong.
In some cases we know that detentions after school are sometimes sufficient for some students and they change their ways, but in most cases this proves to be un-sufficient especially as students become wiser and start taking advantage in detentions to verbally abuse their teachers. Is this acceptable? I say no.
School truancy figures in England are up and a recent report into secondary school discipline showed that levels of bad behaviour were on the increase we need to work together to make a better environment for students who want a good education.
No corporal punishment should not be allowed back into the schools. A child that bullies and torments other children; disruptive in the classroom; unruly and misbehaving in a manner that is assualtive and combative with others should be tested by the school psychologist and a plan should be developed to address the needs of the child. Many times children that act out in the classroom suffer with learning disabilites or some type of neuological disorder. Prior to "hitting" the child to curb "certain" behaviors, explore what is going on with the child and the child's home environment. Children in today's society are exposed to tremendous "stimulants" in the home through and by television/computers/telephones/ magazines, radio, friends/relatives, poor parenting by the parents, diet or lack thereof, etc. -- Advocate for "intervention and prevention" programs for kids in the school environment. Advocate for a change in the school curriculum. If children have poor communication skills then educate them on how to communicate their needs in a more effective manner, etc. --- There is a reason for the "bad" behaviors of a child. We need to enhance the antiquated model that our schools are based on and reflect the changes that have occurred in Society over the past fifty years.
Yes, it serves no purpose other than to establish who has the power over whom. If an adult struck another adult because they believed the person was not behaving in an acceptable manner, he or she would be guilty of the crime of assault and battery. Children deserve the same protection under the law as adults including in school. "People are not for hitting, and children are people too"; therefore no one has the right to use physical force as a disciplinary measure.
Corporal punishment should be illegal in all schools. If a child acts out in school, something is going on with the child and that needs to be explored. "Hitting" as a means to resolve or provide cure is like "pouring gasoline to put out an existing fire". Greater emphasis needs to be placed in facilitating avenues within the school environment for the child that is suffering. In lieu of "hitting" the child and calling that "the cure", let us teach the child a more effective means of communicating to get their needs met.
It varies from state to state and country to country. Usually the "Age of Consent" is recognized by the judge and affords the minor the option to choose which parent to live with. Some states do not grant the child any say in the decision.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)
Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) dealt with the need for individuals in police custody to understand their constitutional rights before being questioned by police. The specific protections addressed are the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate oneself, and the Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel. The "fundamentals of fairness" standard, derived from the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, demands that the accused be aware of his (or her) options in dealing with police so he can make informed decisions and not unwittingly act against his best interest.
In each of the cases, a defendant who was not "free to leave" police custody was interrogated by "police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney" without being advised that he had the Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions, that any statements made could be used against him at trial, and that he had the Sixth Amendment right to consult with an attorney at any time during the interrogation, even if he had already made voluntary statements or answered questions.
In the named case, Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and sexual assault in March 1963. He was taken to the police station, where he was identified by the victim, then forced to stand, handcuffed, in a room for several hours while interrogated by detectives. Miranda finally confessed to the crime, and signed a statement that included a typed disclaimer stating he had "full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me," and had voluntarily waived those rights. Miranda did not receive benefit of an attorney during questioning, nor at the preliminary hearing, and was not aware he had the right to consult with an attorney during those phases of the criminal process.
Miranda's statements were admitted in court over the objection of his attorney. He was subsequently convicted on charges of kidnapping and rape, and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.
On appeal, Miranda's lawyer argued the defendant had been deprived of his constitutional rights, making the confession illegally obtained. He believed Miranda's conviction should be vacated on those grounds.
The state of Arizona argued that Miranda had a long police record and was aware of the procedures used to obtain his confession. They further argued he had demonstrated intelligence in skillfully negotiating with police, and had signed the confession willingly. The prosecution had been proper under Arizona law; if the verdict was thrown out, it would set a precedent that would hamper future police investigations.
The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling, allowing Miranda's conviction to stand. Miranda's attorney petitioned the US Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted for the 1965-1966 Term.
Supreme Court Decision
The Warren Court had previously ruled, in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 US 478 (1964), when a police investigation is no longer a general inquiry about an unsolved crime, but focuses on a specific suspect, a defendant cannot be denied his constitutional right to assistance of counsel.
The Escobedo decision, in combination with Gideon v. Wainwright, (1963) and Mapp v. Ohio, (1961) had established a "fundamentals of fairness" standard designed to protect the constitutional rights of the accused. In Escobedo, the Court held the defendant had the right to counsel as soon as he or she was identified as a suspect in a criminal investigation. The Miranda ruling lowered the threshold for determining when an individual could invoke constitutional protection using the "right to leave" test, which includes any time the person no longer had the freedom to voluntarily remove himself from police custody.
In a narrow 5-4 vote, the Court ruled to reverse Miranda's conviction on the basis that he had not been correctly informed of his constitutional rights. The typed waiver at the bottom of the statement was held to be insufficient to constitute a valid waiver of rights. Failure to ensure the suspect understood his constitutional rights was a violation of the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause.
Chief Justice Warren clearly stated the rules governing custodial interrogation in the opinion of the Court:
"In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed: the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him."
Miranda's conviction was reversed, and the case remanded to the trial court for rehearing, with the signed confession to be excluded as evidence.
After the Decision
On retrial, Miranda was again convicted, this time on the victim's statement and other circumstantial evidence, and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.
Miranda was released on parole in 1972, and stabbed to death in a barroom brawl in 1976.
The Court's decision permanently changed law enforcement procedures, such that people taken into police custody must be formally advised of their rights before questioning. Each state is free to determine the exact wording of their "Miranda Warning," provided the elements stipulated in the Supreme Court decision are clearly included.
The Miranda ruling has been revised somewhat by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. On June 1, 2010, the Roberts' Court released the opinion for Berghuis v. Thompkins,08-1470 (2010), which held a defendant must invoke his right to remain silent (by stating he wants to remain silent), rather than waive it (by explicitly agreeing to answer questions before interrogation).
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense."
Some jurisdictions use more elaborate warnings, designed to prevent confessions from being excluded in court:
"You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?
Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?
If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?"
Other variations are also used.
The Miranda Rights were established in 1966. The Miranda Rights are that you have to be informed of all of your rights before questioned.
The First Amendment only protects free speech. Expressions which don't convey a specific message are not protected. That (according to the ACLU's web site) includes: non-natural-colored hair, mohawks/other hair cuts/piercings, etc. Schools can and do limit specific types of clothing and accessories for student safety, in addition to trying to "keep things non-disruptive" in class. Yes, it bites, but as an almost-40-yr-old OS punk whose mama didn't pay for the cool private school, I'll vouch that there are plenty of opportunities for self-expression outside of high school. Otherwise, challenge the dress code via the school board, and then via your attorney, if the attorney will take your case and feels it really is a civil rights/freedom of expression violation.AnswerI think that school dress codes are unfair. You shouldn't be told what to wear if its your body. If the faculty has a problem with they way you dress tell them to go buy your clothes. Because most teens do buy their own clothes..if they bought them they should be able to wear them when they please. AnswerIn my opinion, no. Read the civil rights and you will have the answer. If you are in a business that requires uniforms and you agree to it, then you accepted the job under those terms. The same rule of thumb applies with schools and regulations. If your clothes are causing concern or attention because your skirt is too short, that is border line indecent exposure. If your t-shirt has suggestive things written on it, such as sexual, illegal activities-like marijuana leaves, etc., then you are being told to change your clothes because they are innappropriate and not because the school didn't like your expression. In other words, your civil rights have not been infringed. The first Amendment protects your freedom to talk but you are not equally free to curse. Similarly, the first Amendment protects your right to worship as you see fit. However, you are not equally free to worship if to do so requires you to sacrifice a person by killing them. So the rule of thumbs is- it not what you do, but how you do it. AnswerIn my opinion, students should be able to wear what they would like to wear. Students need to be comfortable and happy so that they may learn and enjoy their learning envirement. However, I do acknowledge that some persons choose to dress in ways which cross a reasonableness boundry. For example, some girls will wear 2 inch mini skirts and try to pass them off as propper clothing. I also believe that shirts that say its cool to do drugs or shirts that have pornographic images on them should not be worn. However, alcohol and cigarette ad shirts arent as bad in my opinion because there are some nice looking tshirts that advertise a typeof liquer that my mom gets from work that are pretty cool looking. i just wish i could wear them to school without getting in trouble. but to answer the civil rights question. I believe that dress codes do violate your civil rights. your right to free speech and expression is under the first amendment. schools telling someone that they're not allowed to wear the clothing you wish to wear(with restrictions) is in violation of these rights. There are also instances in which a person attends a school which has no official dress code. Then, half way through the school year, that school chooses to enact and enforce a new official dress code which requires students to dress differently than they have been. In my opinion, that situation also violates the civil rights of students. But, I do NOT believe it violates a student's civil rights if that student registers for school and signs a document in which they acknowledge that they understand that they will be required to comply with an official dress code. AnswerIn my opinion, dress codes do not violate a student's civil rights. If you decide to attend school there, you are saying you will abide by their rules, and dress codes are ment to improve the over all look of the school. Answerno.i think that children should abide by the school rules and wear the proper clothing the school principal instructs,although somethings are a little too strict like socks;color,length,ect;also things like hair;color, style;such as mowhawks,ect. it's your hair and you should not be told what to do with it or how you can or can't wear it:this is just my opinion and i am just a kid;i would like to be comfortable but i think that it would cause trouble if some kids wore designer clothing and others didn't it could lead to people getting picked on which isn't cool. And one other thing,i think,things like rub on tatoo's are not at all a big a deal i mean come on people we're talking about fake tatoo's here and that's just retarded that some schools are not allowing them.
He died on March 1, 1925. :)
it forbids laws limiting states' power
The Miranda rights are based in the amendments to the Constitution. The 5th amendment states the right to remain silent and the 6th states the right to an attorney. The precedent of reading them as a suspect is taken into custody was set in the supreme court case Miranda v. Arizona, in which it was determined that reading the Miranda rights would help protect the suspect's rights.
technically it is not actually illegal to do this however if you are trying it out make sure you don't get caught... by the way i wouldn't advise you to do it.
Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations if at least one party consents [See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)]. 38 states and the District of Columbia have also adopted one-party consent laws. -- Demsd
1870 was the year that blacks were allowed to vote under the 15th amendment. Some no doubt voted in local elections years before this. However even in the 1960s alot of black people were still denied the vote since they had to pass a literacy test. thanks to the Civil Rights Campaign the voting rights act of 1965 was past and this ended the literacy tests. ensured federal agents could monitor registration and step in if it was felt there was discrimination. It was thought that if less than 50 per cent of all its voting citizens were registered then racial discrimination could be presumed
No, providing you do not distribute it commercially without getting a signed release from the civilians allowing you to depict them.
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.