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 321 days ago|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 321 days ago|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]
25,620,957 questions answered
Popular Conversations
factor x 2 - 5x - 14 User: Factor p 2 + 18p + 32.
Weegy: b.(p + 2)(p + 16) to check: p*p + (2p + 16p) + (2 * 16) = p^2 + 18p + 32 so the answer is b.(p + 2)(p + 16) ...
6/25/2016 11:02:52 AM| 3 Answers
factor 3x 2 - 6x - 240 User: factor 25a2 - 100 User: factor 10x - ...
Weegy: Given: -7y^2 + 7y + 84. 7 is the greatest common factor of the polynomial. -7y^2 + 7y + 84 = 7(-y^2+ y + 12) ...
6/25/2016 11:23:36 AM| 3 Answers
3. Simplify the expression. 9xy2 – 11xy2
6/25/2016 12:24:53 AM| 1 Answers
Simplify the expression. Show your work. 22 + (32 – 42)
Weegy: 22 + (32 - 42) = 22 - 10 = 12 User: Evaluate the expression for a = –1 and b = 5. Show your work. 5a – 7b + ...
6/25/2016 12:11:11 AM| 1 Answers
Weegy Stuff
S
P
L
Points 857 [Total 1518] Ratings 2 Comments 837 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 340 [Total 701] Ratings 2 Comments 320 Invitations 0 Offline
S
L
P
P
P
Points 156 [Total 3699] Ratings 0 Comments 156 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 135 [Total 416] Ratings 0 Comments 135 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 127 [Total 179] Ratings 0 Comments 127 Invitations 0 Offline
S
P
1
Points 107 [Total 852] Ratings 3 Comments 57 Invitations 2 Offline
S
L
Points 73 [Total 4193] Ratings 0 Comments 73 Invitations 0 Online
S
Points 59 [Total 134] Ratings 0 Comments 59 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 40 [Total 50] Ratings 1 Comments 30 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 32 [Total 139] Ratings 0 Comments 32 Invitations 0 Offline
* Excludes moderators and previous
winners (Include)
Home | Contact | Blog | About | Terms | Privacy | © Purple Inc.