Exemption Clauses : An Exemption Clause

The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case

There are two defences to an action in negligence: contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk. (FoBL, 2005, p83) This case only involves contributory negligence.

Many constitutions all over the world provide basis for innocence until proven guilty. As such, the courts of law must always factor in the provisions of criminal procedure and natural justice when cross-examining offenders. In light of this, the exclusionary rule allows a defendant to argue his case if his privacy rights were violated before arraigned in court. In essence, the provisions of the exclusionary rule prevent the government authorities and machinery such as FBI and CIA from gathering evidence from an individual in a manner that disrespects the United States constitution. Therefore, the exclusionary law protects an individual against unreasonable search or seizure in line with the provisions of the Fourth

The U.S Supreme Court adopted the exclusionary rule to prevent the use of inappropriate behavior and violations of an individual’s rights by government officials through the use of the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule protects the rights of the people under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, and requires evidence obtained directly or indirectly as a result of government violations cannot be used as proof of guilt in a court of law [1]

Dixon did not meet the standard of care. Meaning he is a part of the blame. The clause did not excuse the defendant's

The Exclusionary rule requires that any evidence taken into custody be obtained by police using methods that violates an individual constitutional rights must be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that individual. This rule is judicially imposed and arose relatively recently in the development of the U.S. legal system. Under the common law, the seizure of evidence by illegal means did not affect its admission in court. Any evidence, however obtained, was admitted as long as it satisfied other evidentiary criteria for admissibility, such as relevance and trustworthiness. The exclusionary rule was developed in 1914 and applied to the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, and was limited to a prohibition on the use

In 1949, Wolf v. the People of the state of Colorado questions whether or not the states can deny the due process law that is required under the Fourth Amendment in a state offense. (FindLaw, 2014) Dr. Wolf was in trial for conspiracy for conducting an abortion on Mildred Cairo. The prosecutors obtained Dr. Wolf’s appointment book and was used as evidence against him. (HENRIKSEN, 20140 Mr. Wolf’s referred to a previous 1914 case, Weeks v. United States, and claimed that his appointment book had been seized in violation the Fourth Amendment. In Weeks v. US it was ruled that any evidence from an illegal search would not be admitted in a federal court. Justice Frankfurter argued that although he agreed that the exclusionary rule was a great way to prevent illegal search and seizures, however, it was not the only way and he denied to imposed this act among the

breach of express and implied contracts based on the theory of promoter liability. The courts

1. The concept of selective incorporation according to We the People, was a “progression by which different securities in the Bill of Rights were incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1937 the “courts were still unwilling to defend civil freedoms beyond the First Amendment. The first case that established selective incorporation was Palko v. Connecticut. The courts determined that “the provisions of the Bill of Rights should be selectively combined and useful as a constraint on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment “(Ginsberg et al. 117). Gideon v. Wainwright “established the right to counsel during criminal courts”. The Miranda v. Arizona likewise established the right to counsel and remain silent” The incorporation that gained a lot of nationwide attention is McDonald v. Chicago where the “right to bear arms was granted” (Ginsberg et al. 118). This incorporation has paved the way for several national cities to pass gun laws.

To determine whether or not the admission of evidence is constitutionally permissible can be a very tough decision. There are many laws and regulations that must be adhered to in order for evidence to be admissible to ensure that a defendant’s right are not violated. One of the most important rules that help protect against illegal evidence being admitted into evidence is the Exclusionary rule. This rule helps to ensure that evidence which is admissible into criminal prosecutions are not only relevant and reliable, but have not violated the fourth or fifth amendment due to misconduct. Specifically, the exclusionary rule forbids evidence obtained by violating a defendant’s constitutional rights to be introduced by the prosecution for the purpose of proving direct guilt Gardner & Anderson, 2013, pg. 218-219).Police misconduct often leads to evidence that can either be obtained legally through the use of illegal evidence, evidence that is illegally obtained through violations of other rules, regulations, a defendants rights, or evidence that is obtained illegally but falls under one of the exclusionary rule exceptions such as the plain view doctrine (Gardner & Anderson, 2013, pg. 219-221).

The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to not allow the use of improperly obtained evidence. The exclusionary rule discourages the government form violating an individual's constitutional rights. The exclusionary rule arose because it is a judge created case law to avoid police or government malpractice. This doctrine at a criminal trial forbids the introduction of evidence that violates individuals fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment. If an officer violates an individuals rights and does not follow through with the exclusionary rule they may be sued or prosecuted criminally. In criminal cases, the exclusionary rule is the most popular to address constitutional infractions by the government.

Since Colonial times, present day United States of America has experienced taxation exemptions among religious organizations and affiliates. Religious citizens have been protected beyond taxation as well. Louis Fischer found in his article Statutory Exemptions for Religious, “A Pennsylvania law in 1775, omitted military religious citizens to bear military arms. Instead, giving them other non-violent associated jobs among the militia” (292). The Continental Congress in 1775 stated, “some people for religious reasons cannot bear arms.” In 1863 the religious participants Quakers and Shakers were allowed to pay a 300$ fine to substitute military service (Fischer 292). The National Defense Act of 1916 excluded military exemptions from people with

This is an interesting topic matter. I think the exclusionary rule is necessary to some sort of extent. I think citizen's rights need to come in place no matter what the circumstances are. All people should be treated equal even if they are considered "dangerous". Obtaining evidence illegally isn't right and I agree with that. However, there is exceptions to the rule that I don't agree with. The exception to the rule is the "good faith", which is "reasonable, honest belief lacking malice or ill intent and without intention to defraud. The concept of good faith appears in many areas of law, although it is intangible and determined based on the totality of the circumstances rather than some hard and fast rule". The problem I have with that is

In this paper, I will research how Alabama, has recognized the old English version of the common-law principle of sovereign immunity that the state cannot be sued without its consent and that since the state can act only through its officers and agents a suit against a state officer is in effect one against the sovereign state.

Indirect discrimination can arise when it is a condition, rule, policy, or even a practice in your company that applies to everyone but particularly disadvantages people who share a protected characteristic.