The exclusionary rule is: a legal principle in the United States that prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law.
Its purpose is to deter law enforcement officers from conducting unlawful searches and seizures and to ensure that individuals' rights under the Fourth Amendment are protected.
A growing number of constitutional scholars, lawyers, and judges are questioning the wisdom of the exclusionary rule for several reasons.
First, they argue that it can result in guilty criminals being set free because crucial evidence is deemed inadmissible.
Second, some believe that the rule's deterrent effect on police misconduct is limited, as there are alternative remedies, such as civil lawsuits and internal disciplinary actions.
Lastly, critics argue that the exclusionary rule is overly broad, and that there should be exceptions to allow for the admissibility of evidence in certain cases, such as when the violation was made in good faith or when the evidence would have been discovered eventually.
In summary, the exclusionary rule is designed to protect individuals' constitutional rights by excluding unlawfully obtained evidence from trials. However, its effectiveness and fairness are increasingly being debated by legal experts who question whether it is the best method to achieve its goals.
To know more about exclusionary rule, refer here:
https://brainly.com/question/31118569#
#SPJ11
Complete question:
What is the exclusionary rule? What is its purpose? Why are a growing number of constitutional scholars, lawyers and judges questioning its wisdom?
A constitutional principle known as the exclusionary rule forbids the use of evidence gathered through unauthorised searches or seizures in court. The efficacy and wisdom of this rule, however, have been the subject of an expanding discussion among constitutional scholars, attorneys, and judges in recent years. Others contend that it is an essential safeguard against unconstitutional searches and seizures. Some claim that it makes it more difficult for law enforcement to adequately investigate and prosecute criminal activities. The continuous debate over the exclusionary rule ultimately emphasises the complexity and nuance of constitutional law as well as the continual demand for careful and thorough legal examination.
learn more about wisdom here
https://brainly.com/question/30009007
#SPJ11
A §351 deferral is only available when a single shareholder transfers property for a controlling stock interest in a corporation. true or false?
False. A Section 351 deferral under the Internal Revenue Code is available when a shareholder transfers property to a corporation in exchange for stock, and it can apply to both single and multiple shareholders.
Under Section 351, the transfer of property to a corporation is not taxable if the transfer is made in exchange for stock in the corporation, and if immediately after the transfer, the transferor and other persons who transfer property to the corporation (if any) own at least 80% of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote and at least 80% of the total number of shares of all other classes of stock of the corporation.
Therefore, it is not necessary for a single shareholder to transfer property for a controlling stock interest in a corporation to qualify for a Section 351 deferral. Multiple shareholders can transfer property to the corporation and still qualify for the deferral if the 80% ownership requirement is met.
learn more about Section 351 here:
https://brainly.com/question/14788745
#SPJ4
It is true that a §351 deferral is only available when a single shareholder transfers property for a controlling stock interest in a corporation.
A §351 deferral is available when one or more shareholders transfer property to a corporation in exchange for stock, and the transferors are in control of the corporation immediately after the exchange. The control requirement is met if the transferors own at least 80% of the total combined voting power and 80% of the total number of shares of all other classes of stock. It is not limited to a single shareholder.
Know more about §351 deferral here:
https://brainly.com/question/14788745
#SPJ11
a law changed after the contract was arranged but before the full performance of the contract. the law prohibits the transaction from taking place. this would be an example of
Answer:
Impossibility
Explanation: