Some police departments use physical standards to legally discriminate against female candidate and this should not be allowed because even if it’s legal discrimination that’s still discrimination. Men are always going to be physically stronger than women that’s how they are built. Some examples of test that discriminate against women are test the involve upper body strength like pull ups, outdated test that have been used for years but have not been updated and “obstacle courses or tests with one cut-off score for everyone, regardless of sex or age” ("Know Your Rights”) In her article for the Gazette, a Colorado Springs newspaper, Debbie Kelly wrote about physical fitness testing being suspended for all of Colorado Springs police officers
…show more content…
Reasonable expectation of privacy was set in the case Katz v. United States (Ganis, 217). Katz was suspected by the FBI of transferring gambling information to clients over the phone so they bug they pay phone he used. They caught him transfer the funds and “Katz was convicted under an eight-count indictment for the illegal transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami” (“Katz v. United States."). He appeal his conviction saying that he had a right to privacy in the phone booth. The court agreed with Katz and in his “opinion, Justice John Harlan, Jr., set a two-pronged test for a person’s expectation of privacy : 1. The individual must prove that she or he expected privacy, and 2. Society must recognize that expectation as reasonable” (Ganis, 217). What Justice John Harlan Jr. means is that katz had to prove that he suspected privacy and he did that by closing the door to the phone booth and he talked into the mouthpiece of the phone, all indications that he wanted privacy. The second by is that we as a society have to find it reasonable, which it is reasonable to expect privacy in a phone booth. Despite this ruling, taking sets to protecting …show more content…
Once an arrest has been made the arresting office has 48 hours to prove to the judge that there was probable case for the arrest even on the 48 hours includes the weekend or holiday. If evidence is seized illegally the it will be thrown out using the exclusionary rule that states; “A rule under which any evidence that is obtained in violation of the accused’s rights, as well evidence derived from illegally obtained evidence will not be admissible in court.” (Gains, 216). However there is a few exception to this rule, the first one is the inevitable discovery exception and this states; “The legal principle that illegally obtained evidence can be admissible in court if police using lawful means would of have “inevitably” discovered it” (Gains, 216). This rule was made during “the wake of the disappearance of ten-year-old Pamela Powers of Des Moines, Iowa, on Christmas Eve, 1968…. Initially in Brewer v. Williams, the Court ruled that the evidence was (Power’s body) had been obtained illegally because Williams's attorney had not been present during the interrogation that led to his admission. Several years later in Nix v. Williams the court reversed itself, ruling that the evidence was admissible because the body would eventually (“inevitably”) been found by lawful means”
Reasonable expectation of privacy was set in the case Katz v. United States (Ganis, 217). Katz was suspected by the FBI of transferring gambling information to clients over the phone so they bug they pay phone he used. They caught him transfer the funds and “Katz was convicted under an eight-count indictment for the illegal transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami” (“Katz v. United States."). He appeal his conviction saying that he had a right to privacy in the phone booth. The court agreed with Katz and in his “opinion, Justice John Harlan, Jr., set a two-pronged test for a person’s expectation of privacy : 1. The individual must prove that she or he expected privacy, and 2. Society must recognize that expectation as reasonable” (Ganis, 217). What Justice John Harlan Jr. means is that katz had to prove that he suspected privacy and he did that by closing the door to the phone booth and he talked into the mouthpiece of the phone, all indications that he wanted privacy. The second by is that we as a society have to find it reasonable, which it is reasonable to expect privacy in a phone booth. Despite this ruling, taking sets to protecting …show more content…
Once an arrest has been made the arresting office has 48 hours to prove to the judge that there was probable case for the arrest even on the 48 hours includes the weekend or holiday. If evidence is seized illegally the it will be thrown out using the exclusionary rule that states; “A rule under which any evidence that is obtained in violation of the accused’s rights, as well evidence derived from illegally obtained evidence will not be admissible in court.” (Gains, 216). However there is a few exception to this rule, the first one is the inevitable discovery exception and this states; “The legal principle that illegally obtained evidence can be admissible in court if police using lawful means would of have “inevitably” discovered it” (Gains, 216). This rule was made during “the wake of the disappearance of ten-year-old Pamela Powers of Des Moines, Iowa, on Christmas Eve, 1968…. Initially in Brewer v. Williams, the Court ruled that the evidence was (Power’s body) had been obtained illegally because Williams's attorney had not been present during the interrogation that led to his admission. Several years later in Nix v. Williams the court reversed itself, ruling that the evidence was admissible because the body would eventually (“inevitably”) been found by lawful means”