subject
History, 06.04.2021 20:40 shirlsmith72

• Exclusionary Rule Consider the following situations in which government officials illegally obtained evidence of a crime. Then answer the questions that follow.

a. A chief executive officer (CEO) of a major corporation that employs hundreds of thousands of workers faces criminal charges for stealing millions of dollars from employee pension (retirement) funds. Government officials obtained evidence of the crime by hacking into the CEO's home computer.

b. A high school junior faces criminal charges for selling marijuana. Police suspected that the student was involved in drug trafficking, went to the student's home without a warrant, and broke in after they determined that no one was home. They found receipts for drug sales and other incriminating evidence.

c. A person faces criminal conspiracy charges for planning to blow up an office building in Miami. Government officials obtained evidence of the plot by illegally wire-tapping the defendant's home phone.

d. A person faces criminal charges for tax evasion, a crime that government officials had suspected for many years but never been able to prove. They obtained evidence to support the charges by paying the defendant's accountant to give them records of the defendant's income for the past 15 years.

1) Should the evidence obtained in each situation be allowed in or excluded from the trial of each of the defendants? Explain your reasoning.

2) If you think the exclusionary rule is not appropriate in any of the situations described above, what alternative would you suggest and why?

ansver
Answers: 3

Other questions on the subject: History

image
History, 21.06.2019 22:30, 24jameb
Is this statement true or false? before 1850, workers in american mines, mills, and factories were poorly paid, but their safety on the job was always protected by strict laws.
Answers: 1
image
History, 21.06.2019 23:30, starfox5454
What was the difference between bombing military targets in the united kingdom, and bombing the city of london? a. bombing a city kills lots of innocent civilians, bombing a military target doesn't b. bombing military targets didn't force the u. k. to surrender, but bombing london did c. military targets were bombed by japan, while london was bombed by the nazis d. london was bombed before the u. s. entered the war; military targets were bombed afterward
Answers: 2
image
History, 22.06.2019 08:30, mckennayoshz
President clinton believed both nafta and gatt would hinder political relations among many countries. increase the us federal deficit to record levels. improve trade relations among many countries. decrease government spending to record lows.
Answers: 3
image
History, 22.06.2019 09:30, DaiDai8328
What was one possible outcome of their virginia and kentucky resolves
Answers: 3
You know the right answer?
• Exclusionary Rule Consider the following situations in which government officials illegally obtai...

Questions in other subjects:

Konu
English, 11.01.2021 09:20
Konu
Mathematics, 11.01.2021 09:20
Konu
Mathematics, 11.01.2021 09:20