You have new items in your feed. Click to view.
Question and answer
Question not found
Ask a question
Not a good answer? Get an answer now. (Free)
New answers
Rating

There are no new answers.

Comments

There are no comments.

Add an answer or comment
Log in or sign up first.
Questions asked by the same visitor
What percentage of cases are dropped because of the exclusionary rule? (Points : 3) approximately 8% less than 10% more than 12% fewer than 2%
Weegy: The primary purpose of the Exclusionary Rule "is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures." (United States v. Calandra (1974) 414 U.S. [ [ 338 [38 L.Ed.2nd 561]; Illinois v. Krull (1987) 480 U.S. 340 [94 L.Ed.2nd 364]; People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 799.) "?[T]he "prime purpose" of the [exclusionary] rule, if not the sole one, "is to deter future unlawful police conduct." [Citations]' (Citations)" (Italics added; People v. Sanders (2003) 31 Cal.4th 318, 324.) It is also the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to "safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by government officials." (Camera v. Municipal Court (1967) 387 U.S. 523, 528 [18 L.Ed.2nd 930, 935].) An otherwise lawful seizure can violate the Fourth Amendment if it is executed in an unreasonable manner. (United States v. Alverez-Tejeda (9th Cir. 2007, citing United States v. Jacobsen (1984) 466 U.S. 109, 124 [80 L.Ed.2d 85].) Evidence illegally obtained by private persons, acting in a private capacity, is not subject to the Exclusionary Rule. (See Krauss v. Superior Court (1971) 5 Cal.3rd 418, 421; People v. North (1981) 29 Cal.3rd 509, 514; Jones v. Kmart Corp. (1998) 17 Cal.App.4th 329, 332.) Even a peace officer, when off-duty and acting in a private capacity, may be found to have acted as a private citizen. (See People v. Wachter (1976) 58 Cal.App.3rd 911, 920, 922.) However, the Exclusionary Rule is not intended to prevent all police misconduct or as a remedy for all police errors. "The use of the exclusionary rule is an exceptional remedy typically reserved for violations of constitutional rights." (United States v. Smith (9th Cir. 1999) 196 F.3rd 1034, 1040.) Not all courts are in agreement that such a remedy is reserved exclusively for constitutional violations. (See discussion in United States v. Lombera-Camorlinga (9th Cir. 2000) 206 ... (More)
Question
Expert Answered
Asked 6/18/2012 3:58:14 PM
0 Answers/Comments
For a right to be clearly established for purposes of defeating a claim of qualified immunity, the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what they are doing violates the right. (Points : 2) True False
Question
Not Answered
Updated 8/10/2015 8:39:47 AM
1 Answer/Comment
For a right to be clearly established for purposes of defeating a claim of qualified immunity, the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what they are doing violates the right. TRUE
Added 8/10/2015 8:39:47 AM
This answer has been confirmed as correct, not copied, and helpful.
Confirmed by jeifunk [8/10/2015 9:36:24 AM]
26,186,503 questions answered
Weegy Stuff
S
L
P
P
P
P
P
Points 913 [Total 4985] Ratings 2 Comments 893 Invitations 0 Offline
S
P
1
L
Points 663 [Total 1543] Ratings 5 Comments 613 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 205 [Total 499] Ratings 0 Comments 205 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 100 [Total 100] Ratings 0 Comments 100 Invitations 0 Offline
S
L
P
Points 83 [Total 1195] Ratings 0 Comments 83 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 72 [Total 72] Ratings 0 Comments 72 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 30 [Total 30] Ratings 3 Comments 0 Invitations 0 Offline
S
L
Points 25 [Total 4250] Ratings 1 Comments 15 Invitations 0 Offline
S
L
P
P
P
Points 13 [Total 3875] Ratings 0 Comments 13 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 10 [Total 10] Ratings 1 Comments 0 Invitations 0 Offline
* Excludes moderators and previous
winners (Include)
Home | Contact | Blog | About | Terms | Privacy | © Purple Inc.