0
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What are Indian Heritage College Grants?
Indian heritage college grants are grants that are available to those of Native American descent. In order to obtain one of these grants, you will have to prove your Native American heritage.
How can you prove you are not a witch?
You do not have to prove you are nota witch. Others have to prove that you are a witch. Even if you are a witch, or Wicca, there is nothing wrong with that (in the US).
What were the Americans able to prove at the battle of Saratoga?
they were able to prove that they were stupid heads!!!!!
What did Columbus set out to prove?
Columbus originally was determined to prove that
Where did Julius casar go on the 15th march 44 bc?
Julius Caesar went to the meeting of the senate which was to prove fatal to him.Julius Caesar went to the meeting of the senate which was to prove fatal to him.Julius Caesar went to the meeting of the senate which was to prove fatal to him.Julius Caesar went to the meeting of the senate which was to prove fatal to him.Julius Caesar went to the meeting of the senate which was to prove fatal to him.Julius Caesar went to the meeting of the senate which was to prove fatal to him.Julius Caesar went to the meeting of the senate which was to prove fatal to him.Julius Caesar went to the meeting of the senate which was to prove fatal to him.Julius Caesar went to the meeting of the senate which was to prove fatal to him.
Does an employer have a right to search an employee's home for stolen property?
Absolutely NOT! They may however call the police to accuse you and the police may enter with a search warrant if they choose, or the accuser may take you to court to sue you for the accusation and attempt to prove that you indeed have the property.
How do you prove wrong address on warrant after search?
Present proof to the court that the premises that were searched were NOT the address contained on the warrant.
Under what circumstances will a search warrant be issued?
In the US, a search warrant is normally required for the search of an individual's home, vehicle, or property, and the warrant must state the materials being sought and their connection to a criminal act.
When a police officer arrests someone based on an improperly issued warrant what happens?
All they are doing is carrying out the act of arrest, or search. When a warrant is issued signed by a judge, the officer is acting on the good faith that the warrant was properly applied for and was approved by proper judicial review. IF a defense attorney can prove that the warrant was improperly issued warrant it is not the arresting officer who is at fault since he was acting on "good faith."
How do you prove the judge was unfair and partial when signing a search warrant?
That's not a possibility. Judges issue warrants based upon the information supplied to them by the lead detective of the case
When a police officer arrests someone based on an improperly issued warrant the warrant protects the officer from liability?
If the officer reasonably believes the warrant is valid, then the officer is protected from any legal (or civil) consequence. However, the key phrase to that is "the officer reasonably believes".If someone manages to prove that the officer "should have known better", or that the officer lied in order to have the warrant issued, the officer can be held liable, as they knew the warrant was invalid.
Who did the zurcher v Stanford daily court case involve?
In 1971, the police officers of Palo Alto, California obtained a search warrant of the main office of The Stanford Daily. The police were looking for evidence (pictures) involving a violent fight between the police and a group of protestors. This case involved the police and the Standard Daily because it was said that they held pictures proving this incident happened. The pictures were needed to prove who the assailants were. pictures of a violent clash between a group of protesters and the police; the pictures were needed to identify the assailants.
Can evidence obtained in an illegal search be used as evidence in a criminal trial?
No.Another View: The above is not a 100% factual answer. Where the law is concerned never say "never!"Virtually every defense attorney is going to challenge '''any''' evidence against their client as "fruit of the poisoned tree" whether it was illegally obtained, or not, and make the prosecution document the steps taken in recovering it.The defense MUST challenge it as inadmissible.There ARE cases where evidence challenged as "illegally obtained" HAS been ruled admissible, either by the trial court or, subsequently, on appeal.Yes, evidence obtained by an illegal search can possibly be admitted as evidence. While the default assumption is that all evidence obtained as a part of a search which is ruled illegal is inadmissible, there is a large exception. If the prosecution can show inevitable discovery of the evidence, then it can be admitted. Inevitable discovery is a concept where the discovery of the evidence would have happened during subsequent searches which were not performed because the evidence was discovered in the initial (illegal) search.For example: police are waiting for a warrant to search a warehouse of a known counterfeiter. At 10pm, the police, without the warrant, enter the warehouse based on a premise that is later ruled illegal (i.e. they conducted an illegal search at that point in time). During the 10pm search, they discover a printing press and other evidence of counterfeiting. The prosecutor, unaware of the 10pm search, gets a judge to sign the search warrant at 11pm. At trial, the presiding judge, after ruling the 10pm search illegal, would still rule that the evidence obtained from the illegal 10pm search is in fact admissible, since it would have been inevitably discovered by a search conducted at 11pm with the valid search warrant.Basically, the police have to show that in the course of their normal investigative process, they would have found the evidence by legal means.A second exception to the exclusionary rule is if the police making the search act in good faith, then, even if the search is later ruled illegal, the evidence obtained is admissible. A good faith search occurs when police, acting on information that they have no reason to doubt as genuine, nonetheless complete a search which is illegal.The two major examples of this are: police obtain a search warrant before a search. However, later on, the warrant itself is declared invalid. The search is illegal, but the evidence obtained is still admissible. The second example is when a police officer does a post-arrest search (normally allowable), but where the basis for the arrest were faulty through no fault of the arresting officer. This can occur when when a police officer checks for outstanding arrest warrants for a person, and the dispatch incorrectly indicates one exists (creating the reason for the arrest and authority to search). If a computer or records error is later shown to indicate there WAS NO arrest warrant, the police officer's search is was illegal, but the evidence is still admissible, since the officer had no reason to assume a clerical error had taken place.The restriction on the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is that there must be no pattern of misbehavior on the police's part - that is, if the police deliberately misinform the judge to get the warrant, or if recordskeeping is known to be sloppy or negligently maintained, then the police CANNOT invoke the good faith exception, as their systemic negligence means they are now operating in bad faith.
How was probable cause established?
Probable cause is typically established when there is enough evidence to suggest that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. This evidence can come from witness statements, physical evidence, surveillance, or other investigative techniques. Probable cause is required by law before a search or arrest can be conducted.
Can you file a warrant for arrest if someone steals everything out of your home and you know who did it?
you will need to contact the police they will do the rest of the work . but before that you need to give storng evdince to say did they did it and prove. if their a witness it would help
What can i do if i live in California let the dad visit alone with are son and he took him to Arkansas?
You should contact the police immediately. Have your court orders available to prove you have custody and the police will advise you on your next step.You should contact the police immediately. Have your court orders available to prove you have custody and the police will advise you on your next step.You should contact the police immediately. Have your court orders available to prove you have custody and the police will advise you on your next step.You should contact the police immediately. Have your court orders available to prove you have custody and the police will advise you on your next step.
Why does a court sometimes uphold warrantless searches?
There is a whole list of exceptions to needing a search warrant. This means that if they can prove that the search fit into one of the exclusions then the search is lawful. Some of the exceptions are in plain sight so if they can see it even if its when you open your door. Another is abandoned property. There is also immediate danger to society and yourself. There are also different rules for searches of car in traffic stops.
