the-arrest-of-henry-louis-gates---was-it-constitutional_-12956 [wiki.modywzm.pl]

Public commentary on the Henry Louis Gates incident has revealed widespread popular confusion about the extent of our constitutional rights. If ever there were a perfect moment for Americans and their police to learn more about their Bill of Rights, this is it. Let's start with the amazing Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a landmark in the history of personal freedoms. It was inspired in part by lingering American revulsion over the British Customs Act, which had allowed British forces to barge into American homes. The American response was a little disorderly conduct now known as the Boston Tea Party. Absent "exigent circumstances," an American's home is a legal sanctuary beyond the reach of any police officer not armed with a warrant. Skeptical posts to my blog have revealed that many Americans find it hard to believe that we really have that much freedom. In US v Payton, 445 US 573 (1980), a suspected murderer was known to be inside a private residence. During his arrest, police discovered a bullet-casing matching the murder weapon. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, and succeeded at the U.S. This article was created with the help of https://essayfreelancewriters.comversion. Supreme Court. Writing for the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens held that the police were not permitted to enter the premises without a warrant even though 1) they had probable cause that 2) a suspected violent felon was within the premises. Thus Prof. Gates was within his constitutional rights to refuse Sgt. Crowley access to Gates' residence. Crowley's entry without Gates' consent violated Gates' Fourth Amendment rights. In Minnesota v. Olson, 495 US 91 (1990), a suspect in a robbery-murder was arrested inside a home which had been surrounded by police officers. Ruling the suspect's warrant-less arrest to have been unconstitutional, the Supreme Court pointed out that the home had been surrounded by police, which precluded any need to enter without a warrant. Prof. Gates' case is stronger than the defendant's in Olson, because Gates voluntarily presented himself at the door and claimed legal residence. Once the risk of flight has been eliminated, officers may not enter a private residence without a warrant. People lose their keys and force their own doors all the time. When a resident in such a case claims legal residence, the police have to stop at the front door until they get a warrant, no matter how frustrating that may be. Now, let's turn to the First Amendment freedom-of-speech principles involved in a charge of "disorderly conduct." Disorderly conduct statutes have been frequently challenged on constitutional grounds as overbroad and prohibitive of free speech. In 1975 the Massachusetts courts were forced to bring their "disorderly conduct" provisions into accord with an emerging line of Supreme Court decisions. Specifically, it was held that abusive and profane speech in and of itself could not constitute disorderly conduct. The Massachusetts courts have subsequently adopted a factual approach which focuses on whether the allegedly disorderly behavior threatened an imminent breach of the peace (e.g., "tumultuous" behavior). What kind of behavior is sufficiently "tumultuous"? Were the witnesses to the Gates' incident really frightened that Gates was about to attack a dozen armed officers? Did the witnesses fear personal bodily harm? It does not seem likely. If the onlookers had perceived Gates' statements to be merely "loud, derisive, taunting and vulgar," then Gates' arrest would have to be ruled doubly unconstitutional. Although Sgt. Crowley appears to have acted sincerely, ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially when the law we're talking about is the Constitution. Crowley invoked "standard police procedure" as his defense, but such procedures are not exempt from the requirements of constitutionality. Admittedly, the Bill of Rights is a pain in the neck for our nation's police officers. It frequently permits criminals to escape the reach of the law. Its only justification is that it preserves our freedom, which is why it is our national treasure. Even at the cost of hampering law enforcement, these vital freedoms must be zealously defended. In an attempt to hide their shame the government has tried to belittle the tests and performance tables which are a part of the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment, however as they are the same criteria praised by Tony Blair in 2000 as being evidence of how well we were doing at that time, there is little credibility being given to their arguments. Of course, those 2000 results would have been based on a time only a couple of years after a Conservative government, so therefore much of Labour's interference with their damaging policies would not have had time to filter through the system, take affect, and become apparent. Get out of that one, Gordon Brown. With apologies to the late and great Laurel & Hardy: that's another fine mess Tony has got you into! Another day, another disaster, and yet another apology having to be begrudgingly spluttered out by the sorry bunch we, for whatever reason, still call our government and not the Crazy Gang. This one, following the Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry report, by Des Browne the Defence Secretary to the families of the 14 who died as a result of the 37-year-old reconnaissance plane exploding over Afghanistan last year when leaking fuel ignited moments after mid-air refuelling - probably, it is thought, because the recommended fire suppression system had not been fitted to the aircraft. The Nimrod, a museum piece yet an aircraft so vital to the war, is only still flying because as part of a package of cuts its replacement was delayed - so this report by the Board of Inquiry goes a long way in giving credence to all those vociferous military chiefs' complaints of a lack of funding. The government can, and often do in an effort to convince us they are providing adequate funding, produce figures to show they have increased the money allocated to the Armed Forces year on year, however what they don't like to admit, or perhaps are too incompetent to appreciate, is that these increases are on an already severely cut defence budget - one that was something like halved years ago in tune with the more peaceful times. This data was done with the help of https://essayfreelancewriters.com .