Judges, "testilying," and the Constitution
نویسنده
چکیده
Because law enforcement officers must justify searches and seizures in response to motions to suppress evidence,! judges ruling upon these motions often must evaluate the credibility of the officers' testimony. This inquiry can involve one or more of three interrelated questions: Did the facts known to the officer justify the intrusion? Was the officer's purpose in conducting the search and seizure lawful? Is the officer's testimony about the predicate facts and his subjective purpose truthful?
منابع مشابه
Cognitive Criteria for the Moral Solution of the False Brothers “Independence” and “Despotism” of Judges Based on Religious Sources
The independence of judges in arbitration is an important process that is mentioned in the one hundred and fifty-sixth article of the Constitution. The main issue of this research is the moral solution of the false brothers of independence and despotism in judgment. Judges sometimes become confused between the two when making decisions and sentencing, which can only be resolved by recognizing t...
متن کاملعدالت نفسانی قاضی در فقه امامیه و حقوق ایران
Abstract: Justice, in the Islamic worldview, is one of the most important virtues a judge should possess. Particularly, Article 158 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran provides that one of the duties of the president of the Judiciary is the requitment of most qualified, generous, honest and authentic judges. Also, in accordance with Article 163, the terms of office and the gene...
متن کاملCritical analysis of the President's Authorization in the Turkish's 2017 Constitution
From the time that it took political authority in Turkey, the AKP constantly raised the issue of changing Turkey's political system from the parliamentary to the presidential system. Under Erdogan's leadership, after the coup in April 15, 2016, the party was able to reach its goal thanks to the political support of parties and social accompaniment through 2017's referendum. The purpose of this ...
متن کاملFrozen life's dominion: extending reproductive autonomy rights to in vitro fertilization.
Lawyers and judges faced with a contemporary constitutional issue must try to construct a coherent, principled, and persuasive interpretation of the text of particular clauses, the structure of the Constitution as a whole, and our history under the Constitution--an interpretation that both unifies these distinct sources, so far as this is possible, and directs future adjudication. They must se...
متن کاملColumbia Law Review Sidebar
In Is Originalism Our Law?, William Baude has made a good kind of argument in favor of originalism. Rather than contending that originalism is the only coherent theory for interpreting a constitution, he makes the more modest claim that it happens to be the way that American judges interpret our Constitution.1 If he is right—if originalism is our law—then judges deciding constitutional cases ou...
متن کامل