Hot answers tagged

11

united-states Yes. The right to film police carrying out their duties is constitutionally protected. See, e.g, ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012) and Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011). Of course, one could always imagine some fact pattern in which some other consideration overrode this constitutional right (e.g. filming would have had ...


7

The Evidence Would be Admissible. Under the so-called "good faith exception" to the exclusionary rule the evidence would probably be admitted over Bob's objections in both cases mentioned in the question. Recent US court decisions have limited the exclusionary rule when police officers reasonably but mistakenly believe that a valid warrant exists, ...


5

In principle, the evidence could be admitted. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 allows an expert to testify if (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of ...


5

Assuming that the police have a warrant to seize your cell phone, the scope of what can be seized is specified in the warrant. It is not automatic that seizing a phone entails seizure of some or all online accounts (e.g. automatic backups, collections of passwords in a Google account) and it does not automatically "freeze" or block a person's ...


4

It depends on the nature of the crime, among other things. Under Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) the police must provide evidence to a court that a search warrant is necessary to secure and obtain evidence relevant to an ongoing investigation into a crime. If there is evidence that time is of the essence with regards to the ...


4

From my open-source research it seems that law enforcement did not use any coercive powers, such as a subpoena or warrant, in the following case but "covertly" uploaded a suspect's DNA profile in order to identify familial matches for further investigation. So it does show that (in California at least) evidence may be recovered from privately run ...


4

Your question is about the admissibility of expert opinion evidence. The applicable law in U.S. courts is called the Daubert standard. Under this standard, the judge is required to play a “gatekeeper” role by “ensuring that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand” before admitting it. Although the details ...


4

australia Yes You can film anyone in public or with the permission of the occupier of private premises (voyeurism excepted).


3

Assuming that all of these locations are in the same state, this is not an issue of federal law and is not governed by the U.S. Constitution. The geographical jurisdiction of state and local law enforcement officers is exclusively a matter of state law and has no single correct resolution. Different states handle the issue differently. Even if state law or ...


3

Such a search would have been emotionally satisfying for many people, but it would almost certainly not have been legal. Evidence that someone committed a crime is not always sufficient to permit a search of their home. An arrest warrant requires probable cause to believe the target individual committed an offense, and a search warrant requires probable ...


3

TL;DR: You may have chances. Consult a German lawyer fast. In German civil cases there is the possibillity of "Reopening of proceedings" (Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens), §§ 578 ff. ZPO. It can be used in special cases of incorrect proceedings. You have an "Action for retrial of the case" (Restitutionsklage), if "in a testimony or report on which the ...


2

Short answer Maybe Long answer s.61(1) empowers a "proper officer" to enter premises without a warrant for the health protection functions and purposes described in subsections a-to-d in order to search, take samples and measurements, inspect records and any other actions authorised by s.62(1A). A Proper officer is not a constable, but defined at s....


2

If they are “authorised officers”, yes The relevant provisions are in section 13. Subsection 4 gives the minister the power to make regulations to nominate certain bodies to enforce the law. They may authorise people (who may be police but could be others) to be “authorised officers”. Subsection 5 gives those authorised officers the power to enter premises “...


2

In re Grand Jury Witness G.B. addresses the underlying legal principles. In that case, GB, the victim of a stabbing (not a suspect), appealed a court order for a warrant to take a DNA sample. A relevant federal rule is Rule 41(b), that A warrant may be issued ... to search for and seize any (1) property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a ...


1

france No* (in private premises) | Yes (in public spaces) Police doesn't get a special protection from image rights than everyone else, except if the person is a member of a special force with anonymity protection (e.g. RAID, counter-terrorism or intelligence). Which means that, according to Penal Code's 226-1, it's reprehensible 2° En fixant, enregistrant ...


1

There are two questions here: Is it really the police, or someone pretending to be the police in order to stage a home invasion? If it is the police they will be wearing uniforms and showing you their badges. I don't know how common it is for criminals to impersonate police officers. Do they have a valid search warrant? Once you have established that they ...


1

Search warrants are frequently sealed and not accessible to the public until after they are served, so that someone checking public records can't be tipped off that law enforcement agents are headed their way and hide evidence or flee. Calling 911 or a local police department is the best that you can do to verify that a search warrant someone verbally states ...


1

What your lawyer told you sounds about right Judgements in Germany are enforceable for 30 years so this one is still good. The time for lodging appeals is long past so you are stuck with it. In the interests of finality (res judicata), you can’t revisit a case already completed in both civil law (e.g. Germany) and common law (e.g. USA) systems. You had ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible