Supreme Court’s Treatment of Drug Detection Dogs Doesn’t Pass the Sniff Test

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-311
Author(s):  
Matthew Slaughter
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Training Program ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Drug Detection ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
Enclosed Space ◽  
And Training

The current Supreme Court approach to the nuances involved in drug detection dogs is fundamentally flawed. The Supreme Court has allowed, on the evidentiary front, the introduction of unscientific evidence into law enforcement practices, which allows officers to disregard traditional Fourth Amendment protections. As Justice Souter stated in Illinois v. Cabellas, “[T]he sniff alert does not necessarily signal hidden contraband, and opening the container or enclosed space whose emanations the dog has sensed will not necessarily reveal contraband or any other evidence of crime.” The Courts classification of drug detection dogs in Caballes as sui generis is unsubstantiated. The Court in Caballes also determined that a dog sniff alone was sufficient to establish probable cause for a physical search inside a vehicle. The Court should revise this treatment and consider alternative proposals. Additionally the Court’s reliance in Florida v. Harris on blanket terms such as “bona fide organization” and “training program” illustrates the Justices’ incomprehension of the complexities involved in such a process. Finally, the Court in Harris inappropriately dismissed the very real financial incentive law enforcement has to maintain detection dogs that over-alert.

scholarly journals MENGGALI ‘ILLAT HUKUM PERBEDAAN AGAMA SEBAGAI HALANGAN WARIS

EMPIRISMA ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Isna Wahyudi
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Legal Reason ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Religious Courts

Kompilasi Hukum Islam does not regulate interfaith inheritance distinctly. It only requires the testator and the heirs have the same religion. At court, judges of religious courts employ obligatory bequest (waṣiat wājibah) to divide inheritance to non-Muslim heirs, based on jurisprudence of the Supreme Court Number 368 K/AG/1995. As the result, different faith still become hindrance for Muslim and non-Muslim to inherit each other due to law enforcement without considering the legal reasoning (ratio legis) of the law. In this case, it is important to investigate the legal reason (ratio legis) of the hadith that prohibits the interfaith inheritance as this article tries to do. To do the investigation, the author employs Islamic legal theories (uṣūl fikih) and hermeneutics approach. As the result, the author comes to the conclusion that the ratio legis of the hadith that prohibits the interfaith inheritance is due to hostility and crime element and not due to different faith. Keywords: Interfaith Inheritance, Ratio Legis, Equality

7 The Supreme Court and Northern Ireland

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dickson Brice
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Good Friday ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Good Friday Agreement

This chapter begins by considering the arms trial in the early 1970s and outlines the gist of the Sunningdale Agreement in 1973 before considering the challenge to that Agreement dealt with by the Supreme Court in the Boland case. There follows an examination of the Court’s views on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland in McGimpsey v Ireland, decided in the wake of the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, and on the constitutionality of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in the Riordan case. There is an analysis of Law Enforcement Commission’s report and of the Court’s views on resulting Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill 1975. The focus next moves to the shifting views of the Supreme Court on when it is appropriate to extradite suspected terrorists to Northern Ireland. Cases concerning Dominic McGlinchey, Séamus Shannon, Robert Russell, Dermot Finucane and Owen Carron are examined, as is the state of extradition law today.

American Perspectives on Self-Incrimination and the Compelled Production of Evidence

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 218-242
Author(s):  
Mark Berger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Search And Seizure ◽  
Fifth Amendment ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Intimate Relation ◽  
Government Authority

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that no person may be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The Boyd decision in 1886 recognised an intimate relation between the privilege against self-incrimination and the restrictions on search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment and created a virtually impenetrable barrier to government demands that a suspect or defendant be compelled to produce evidence against himself. However, since that time the Supreme Court has progressively restricted the scope of Fifth Amendment protection in relation to the compelled production of evidence. This has been achieved by requiring all citizens to appear before grand juries; by denying Fifth Amendment protection to entities; by holding that the compelled production of evidence does not breach the Fifth Amendment unless the very act of production is self-incriminatory; and by denying the privilege in relation to required records. The Supreme Court's stance reflects a recognition of the complexity of contemporary law enforcement problems and may be seen as an attempt to balance the state's interest in the successful prosecution of crime against the citizen's interest in being free from state intrusion. The effect of the Supreme Court's reforms has been to broaden government authority to compel offenders to assist in their own prosecutions whilst limiting Fifth Amendment protection to incrimination through the accused's own testimony or its equivalent.

scholarly journals Urgensi Pembentukan Peradilan Khusus Pemilu dalam rangka Mewujudkan Integritas Pemilu

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 267
Author(s):  
Iwan Rois ◽  
Ratna Herawati
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Method ◽  
District Court ◽  
Election Law ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
High Court ◽  
Provincial Level ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
General Elections

This study aims to analyze the need to establish a special election court which has the authority to solve various election law cases in order to realize elections with integrity; and analyzing the formulation of election special justice in order to realize the integrity of the election. The research method used is the method of normative legal research and the implementation of this research collects data from various sources in order to get an answer to the issues that have been formulated. The results of the study shows that  the purpose of the need for the formation of special judicial elections; First, to meet the growing demands of increasingly complex justice in society and more election law enforcement so as to realize the integrity of the elections; Second, To handle the election law cases quickly and simply so as to obey the integrity of the election. Formulation; First, the election special justice to be able to work quickly and simply in handling election law cases, domiciled at the central and provincial level, then entering the District Court or the High Court; Secondly, the Guidelines for the election special judicial law shall be based on Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 Year 2017 on Procedures for the Settlement of Administrative Offenses of the General Elections in the Supreme Court. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis perlunya membentuk peradilan khusus pemilu yang mempunyai kewenangan menyelesaikan berbagai perkara hukum pemilu agar terwujud pemilu yang berintegritas; dan menganalisis formulasi pembentukan peradilan khusus pemilu dalam rangka mewujudkan integritas pemilu. Metode penelitian yang digunakan ialah metode penelitian hukum normatif dan pelaksanaan dari penelitian ini mengumpulkan bahan hukum dari berbagai sumber guna mendapatkan suatu jawaban atas pokok-pokok permasalahan yang telah dirumuskan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa tujuan perlunya pembentukan peradilan khusus pemilu; Pertama, Untuk memenuhi tuntutan perkembangan akan keadilan yang semakin kompleks dalam masyarakat dan lebih penegakan hukum pemilu sehingga mewujudkan integritas pemilu; Kedua, Untuk menangani perkara hukum pemilu dengan cepat dan sederhana sehingga mewudkan integritas pemilu. Formulasi; Pertama, Peradilan khusus pemilu agar bisa bekerja cepat dan sederhana dalam menangani perkara hukum pemilu, berkedudukan di tingkat pusat dan provinsi, selanjutnya masuk pada Pengadilan Negeri atau Pengadilan Tinggi; Kedua, Pedoman beracara pada peradilan khusus pemilu berdasarkan pada Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 4 Tahun 2017 tentang Tata Cara Penyelesaian Pelanggaran Administratif Pemilihan Umum Di Mahkamah Agung.

scholarly journals IMPLEMENTASI TUGAS HAKIM PENGAWAS DAN PENGAMAT DALAM PENGAWASAN DAN PENGAMATAN TERHADAP NARAPIDANA (Kajian di Lembaga Pemasyarakatan Klas II A Purwokerto)

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dessy Perdani Yuris PS
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Internal Resistance ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court

The implementation of court judgments needs to be observed and perceived, thus the birth of Supervisor and Observer Judge Institution by Law No. 8 of 1981. The position of a Judge is not simply responsible for imposition of punishment, but also have to responsible for completion of punishment term by inmates in Correctional Institute by appropriate pattern and program of counseling. Besides in article 277 KUHAP till article 288 KUHAP it is charged another task as supervisor and observer of the court decision. The research results show that the implementation of the Supervisory Judge task and Observers in the execution of court decisions in Purwokerto Penitentiary is based on the Criminal Procedure Code Article 277 through Article 283 Criminal Procedure Code, the implementing regulations of the Supreme Court Circular No. RI. No. 7 of 1985. Supervisory Judge in the performance of duties and Observers in Purwokerto Penitentiary still met the constraints that are internal or external, internal resistance from law enforcement and the factors of factor means or facilities. Then the external barriers are the ruling factor.Keywords : Supervisor and Observer Judge, Purwokerto Penitentiary and prisoner

scholarly journals PROBLEMS OF QUALIFICATION OF EXCITATION FOR HATEING OR ENMITY, AS ABA

2020 ◽  
pp. 35-40
Author(s):  
N.V. Tydykova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The Supreme Court

The author analyzes the practice of applying this corpus delicti and notes two trends. The first is tounjustifiably expand the range of acts for which criminal liability arises. This practice does not find support inthe theory of criminal law and causes outrage in society. To overcome this problem, the Supreme Court gaveexplanations, according to which, for the imputation of the composition under consideration, it is necessaryto establish a number of circumstances, in addition to the fact of placing an image or text on the Internet. Thesecond trend of law enforcement practice unites cases of a more thoughtful approach, when a whole complexof circumstances is taken into account to solve the issue of the composition of the composition. Examples aregiven when, prior to the relevant clarifications of the Supreme Court in law enforcement practice, ideas wereexpressed about the need to analyze all the circumstances of the deed, in particular, the targeted orientationof the placement of materials. This led to the conclusion that the Supreme Court did not formulate new rules,but pointed to an approach that is the only true one in the light of the principle of subjective imputation.The author argues that not every dissemination of material can be recognized as aimed at inciting hatred orenmity from someone, or humiliating dignity. It is necessary, with the help of a number of signs, to determinewhich particular idea the person broadcast.

scholarly journals The Jury is Out: The Controversy About Jury Trials Under the Alberta Securities Act

2020 ◽  
pp. 1025
Author(s):  
Robert Stack
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
Court System ◽  
Securities Law ◽  
Division Of Powers ◽  
Jury Trials ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Securities Laws

After reviewing the place of securities law enforcement within the Canadian court system, the author traces the Peers and Aitkens decisions from the Provincial Court to the Supreme Court and outlines how these cases dealt with the question of what penalties trigger the right to a jury trial under section 11(f) of the Charter. The author explains how section 11(f) impacts the division of powers by creating a constitutional cap on the prison sentences that are available for violations of provincial law. In light of stiff maximum penalties for violations of securities laws, the Peers and Aitkens decisions raise the question of whether there are constitutional reasons to continue to try regulatory offences by judge alone in provincially appointed courts.

scholarly journals PENERAPAN SANKSI DENDA TERHADAP KASUS PERSEKONGKOLAN TENDER JALAN NASIONAL

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 197
Author(s):  
Asmah Asmah
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Problem ◽  
District Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Business Opportunities ◽  
Legal Sanctions

ABSTRAKKomisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) dalam Putusan Nomor 09/KPPU-L/2013 menyatakan bahwa terlapor I, terlapor II, terlapor III, terlapor IV, terlapor V, terlapor VI, terlapor VII, terlapor VIII, terlapor IX, dan terlapor X terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan melakukan persekongkolan tender. Pengadilan Negeri Makassar menjatuhkan Putusan Nomor 238/PDT. SUS-KPPU/2014/PN.MKS yang amarnya menolak permohonan keberatan para pemohon. Pada tingkat kasasi, Mahkamah Agung dalam Putusan Nomor 430 K/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2015 menguatkan Putusan Nomor 238/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2014/PN.MKS dan Putusan Nomor 09/KPPU-L/2013. Rumusan masalah penelitian ini adalah bagaimana analisis penerapan sanksi hukum dalam kasus persekongkolan tender pada Putusan Nomor 430 K/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2015 tingkat kasasi di Mahkamah Agung. Metode yang digunakan adalah normatif empiris. Kesimpulan penelitian ini adalah pertimbangan hakim pada Putusan Nomor 430 K/PDT. SUS-KPPU/2015, yang pada dasarnya menguatkan Putusan Nomor 238/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2014/PN.MKS dan Putusan Nomor 09/KPPU-L/2013 yang menyatakan bahwa terlapor telah terbukti memenuhi unsur-unsur Pasal 22 Undnag-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 terkait persekongkolan tender, sehingga merefleksikan nilai-nilai dan norma-norma yang terkandung dalam proses penegakan hukum di bidang persaingan usaha, dengan memberikan jaminan kesempatan berusaha yang sama bagi setiap pelaku usaha melalui pencegahan terjadinya praktik persekongkolan tender.Kata kunci: sanksi, persekongkolan, KPPU.  ABSTRACTThe Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) in Decision Number 09/KPPU-L/2013 states that reported party I up to reported party X were proven legally and convincingly to conduct tender conspiracy. Makassar District Court imposed Decision Number 238/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2014/PN.MKS that refused the petition of petitioners' objections. At the cassation level, the Supreme Court in Decision Number 430 K/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2015 reinforces Decision Number 238/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2014/PN.MKS and Decision Number 09/KPPU-L/2013. The formulation of this research problem is how the analysis of the application of legal sanctions in the case of tender conspiracy in Decision Number 430 K/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2015 cassation level in the Supreme Court. The method used in this analysis is normative. The conclusion of this research is that consideration of the judge on the Decision of the Supreme Court Number 430 K/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2015 that reinforces Decision Number 238/PDT.SUSKPPU/2014/PN.MKS and KPPU Decision Number 09/KPPU-L/2013, which states that the reported party has been proven to fulfill the elements of Article 22 of Law 5 of 1999 related to the tender conspiracy. So that it reflects, the values and norms that contained in the process of law enforcement in the field of business competition, by providing guarantees of equal business opportunities for each business actor through the prevention of the practice of tender conspiracy. Keywords: sanctions, conspiracy, KPPU.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document