Gedulig V. Aiello: Exclusion Case Study

By the 1960’s, states began to reconsider the legalization of abortion in response to the high rate of hospital admissions resulting from illegal abortions and a change in public opinion (“Abortion in Law, History, and Religion”). By the early 1970’s, 17 states had altered their abortion laws towards liberalization (“Abortion in Law, History, and Religion”). In 1973, the Supreme Court declared in Roe vs. Wade that most existing state laws were unconstitutional. The case ruled out any legislative interference in the first trimester of pregnancy and put limits on what restrictions could be passed on abortions in later stages of pregnancy (Sauer).

The district court ruled in McCorvey’s favor on the merits, but didn’t grand an injunction against the enforcement of the laws barring abortion. The courts decision was based upon the Ninth Amendment.

Congress amended Title VII in 1978 by passing the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and made it clear that discrimination based on pregnancy is unlawful sex discrimination. This legislation reversed the Supreme Court's Gilbert decision in 1976. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 which overruled several Supreme Court decisions rendered in the 1980s that had made it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in their employment discrimination suits and to recover fees and costs when they won their lawsuits (www.eeoc.gov). The amendment stated that parties can request jury trials and those successful plaintiffs can recover compensatory and punitive damages in employment discrimination cases. This amendment has

The addition of sexual orientation has gone before Congress many times but it has yet to be included as a protected class. There is so much controversy surrounding gay marriage right now that I believe it is only a matter of time before employment discrimination because of sexual orientation will be the reason for the Title VII will be amended once again. The most recent additions to this law have been discriminating based upon pregnancy, sex stereotyping, and sexual harassment. Title VII states that an employer can’t refuse to hire a woman based upon the fact that she is currently pregnant or because of any pregnancy-related conditions. To be safe and to avoid any litigation in the future, an employer should never ask an individual about their marital status or a woman if she is pregnant.

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]

Facts of the Case: LaNisa Allen appealed the original judgment in favor of Totes/Isotoner Corporation on the issue of whether the Ohio Fair Employment Practices Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits an employer from discriminating against a female employee because of or on the basis of lactation. Relevant law associated includes whether Allen established a prima facie case of “sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,” or whether she “was simply and plainly terminated as an employee at will for taking an unauthorized, extra break.” Allen’s original complaint was termination attributable to discrimination, based on pregnancy and related

During the years leading up to and after 1973, there were numerous events and situations that occurred. Before 1965, the idea of right to privacy was barely used, but Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) changed that. “The case involved a Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptives” (Edwards III, Wattenberg, and Lineberry 131). A doctor and a family-planner were arrested for distributing the use of contraceptives for couples in need. They were eventually brought to court by the state and were convicted. The case was taken to the Supreme Court and was later decided that everyone is entitled to their “right to privacy.” This set the precedent for Roe v. Wade because without Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision might be completely different than what it is now. A court case called Rust v. Sullivan was related to abortion. It specified that “family planning services receiving federal funds could not provide women any counseling regard abortion” (Edwards III, Wattenberg, and Lineberry 131). This decision created public scrutiny as the decision would violate the First Amendment. President Clinton eventually lifted the ban on abortion counseling as it

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).

Even If This Court Was To Find That Ms. Brie’s Authority to Consent Was Ambiguous, This Court Must Still Find that the District Court Properly Denied the Defendant-Appellant’s Motion.

American courts use the exclusionary rule to deter police officers and other government agents from abusing constitutional rights. According to the rule, courts will suppress evidence that the government obtains through unconstitutional conduct—often an unlawful search or seizure (Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice). Suppression means that the evidence in question will be inadmissible for most purposes in the defendant’s eventual trial. If a judge suppresses crucial evidence, the prosecution may have no other choice than to dismiss charges. That is how I interpret the Exclusionary Rule.

A real world use for Dripps’ hybrid option would see both a monetary sanction against law enforcement while not letting the guilty go free. The biggest issue with a real world use of it would be that judges would be reluctant to allow tainted evidence to enter the court room. While Dripps provides an option that is compatible with the restorative justice perspective, it does not provide enough deterrence factor to truly stop law enforcement from infringing on 4th Amendment rights. “This policy of exclusion is based more on the perceived greater need to protect U.S. citizens from governmental abuses than to convict every criminal” (Wagner, 2016). Therefore, the Contingent Exclusionary Rule should be viewed as a stepping block to try and establish

The United States is in a perpetual state of national emergency. A state of emergency, is a situation of national danger or disaster, in which a government suspends normal constitutional procedures in order to regain control. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 (9/11) terror attacks, Congress adopted a resolution on September 14, 2001, stipulating: “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” The broad interpretation of the law by the executive branch has provided it with unlimited authority to act not only against those responsible for 9/11, but any

The need for the new law to be established began with the conflicting outcomes coming from the various levels of the court system. The courts disagreed on what constituted sex discrimination. Six different United States Courts of Appeals had ruled in favor of pregnant women saying that any employment act that would adversely affect a pregnant woman was sex discrimination as outlined by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Supporting this position was the view of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission who also agreed that discrimination based on a pregnancy would be considered sex discrimination. However, the United States Supreme Court would change all of that with its ruling in two separate court

The following are the three justifications and their rationales for the exclusionary rule: Constitutional rights, judicial integrity and deterrence. Because of the Constitutional rights the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights wouldn’t mean anything without the exclusion. In regards to judicial integrity the courts shouldn’t contribute in unconstitutional behavior by approving it. To ensure deterrence in negative police conduct steps in prevention of unconstitutional conduct by government officers are taken.

According to the Supreme Court, exclusion is only mandatory only in federal court. This opens the window for state courts to establish their own formality for preventing unreasonable searches and seizures. The percentages are extremely higher in state prosecution due to this exclusion. It allows the state to prosecute a defendant regardless a search warrant was obtained during the seizing. Private citizens play a part in the percentage of prosecution. They are given the right to play cops by obtaining evidence that could be used against a defendant.