Are the critics’ argument meritorious?
There is a lot of opposition when considering the constitutionality of vehicle checkpoints. I can see both side of the fence per se. Several different types of checkpoints are utilized throughout the United States. For example, an impaired driver checkpoint can be extremely beneficial while detecting irresponsible drivers who make a conscious decision to operate a motor vehicle after consumptions of alcohol causing danger not only to themselves but to every other driver on the roadway. Driver License check points allow police to ensure that citizens are driving around within the laws of their state.
On the flip side, the fourth amendment protects citizens from unlawful searches and detainments. While its ok to check for sobriety at checkpoints it shouldn’t be ok to detain someone without reasonable suspicion. While we all enjoy the benefits that our constitution affords, can we honestly say that detaining someone for an unreasonable amount of time is ok? No, we shouldn’t. While checkpoints benefit the clear majority of law abiding citizens they shouldn’t be used in a fashion to deprive them of their liberties.
Discuss the state of law as it concerns victim input into plea bargaining.
While plea bargaining can be an effective tool for the prosecution victims have a right to
…show more content…
The first right that a defendant’s rights to manifestation could be manifested is the right to appear to trial. Physical presence and mental competence can be assessed to make sure the defendant understands the outcomes of the trial. The second right is that the defendant has the right to live witness testimony. The defendant has the right to hear the testimony of involved parties and witnesses. Lastly the defendant has a right to challenge witness testimony in court. In layman terms the defendant can challenge what the witness is stating that implicates them during the