Property Rights | Century Law Group
http://fighteminentdomain.com/ | Century Law Group | Eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as a section of property rights. This allows a government...
By: Century Law
PREMIUM LEGAL RESOURCES LEGAL FORMS ASK A LAWYER
'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'
The Fifth Amendment 'can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory; and it protects against any disclosures which the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used.' Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 44-45 ('72). A reasonable belief that information concerning income or assets might be used to establish criminal failure to file a tax return can support a claim of Fifth Amendment privilege. See U.S. v. Rendahl, 746 F.2d 553, 55-56 (9th Cir.'84).
The only way the Fifth Amendment can be asserted as to testimony is on a question-by-question basis. Rendahl, 746 F.2d at 555, citing with approval U.S. v. Bell, 448 F.2d 40, 42 (9th Cir.'71) (Fifth Amendment challenge premature on appeal from enforcement order; appellant must present himself for questioning after enforcement and as to each question elect to raise or not to raise the defense).
The appropriate device for compelling answers to incriminating questions is a government grant of use immunity. See Sharp, 920 F.2d at 1172.
Google+
Original post:
"Fifth Amendment" Defined & Explained - Law
New Delhi, Oct 14 (IANS): The ministry of health and family welfare Tuesday banned the import of cosmetics which are tested on animals.
The ban comes in the form of Rule 135-B that states: "Prohibition of import of cosmetics tested on animals. No cosmetic that has been tested on animals after the commencement of the Drugs and Cosmetics (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2014, shall be imported into the country."
It will come into effect Nov 13, 30 days from the date of notification in the Gazette of India.
The government May 4 asked for suggestions from the public and stakeholders in the matter.
With this ban, India becomes the first country in south Asia to impose such a ban and joins European Union in adopting such a rule.
The ban comes after the government prohibited testing for cosmetic products and their ingredients on animals May 23.
The move by the government has been hailed by an NGO working for animal rights.
Alokparna Sengupta, campaign manager at Humane Society International, India, said: "With today's historic ban on the import of animal-tested cosmetics, India has made history for animals in south Asia. We feel confident that if this vision is applied to other areas of product testing, this can be a defining moment in the modernisation of India's safety science, with potentially thousands more animals spared pain and suffering."
Stay updated wherever you go with Daijiworld.com and Daijiworld 24X7 tv channel mobile apps. CLICK HERE to download it for your device. (available on Android and IOS)
See the original post here:
Government bans import of animal-tested cosmetics
Fresno Police Officer violated fifth amendment at a dui checkpoint. part 2
On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 3:49 PM At this point i asked what is the VCV for how far i have to row down the window, the officer said 2814.2... The California Supreme Court has held that...
By: max xiong
See the original post:
Fresno Police Officer violated fifth amendment at a dui checkpoint. part 2 - Video
By Elisabeth Hulette The Virginian-Pilot October 12, 2014
VIRGINIA BEACH
Picture this: You're being prosecuted for a crime.
Police have a search warrant for your iPhone, but they can't open it without your pass code. Now they're asking a judge to order you to give it up. What do you do?
If you're David Baust, you put up a fight. The Emergency Medical Services captain, who is charged with trying to strangle his girlfriend during a fight in February, argues the move raises a Fifth Amendment issue - that by opening his phone, he could incriminate himself.
A judge will decide Baust's case, but it's unlikely to settle the issue for good. Apple and Android recently announced plans to dramatically increase the amount of information on their phones that's automatically encrypted - translated into code - making it far more difficult for law enforcement officials to get the access they say they need to convict criminals.
As that happens, attorneys and experts say, the courts are likely to see more cases pitting prosecutors and police against pass codes.
"It's a bitterly disputed debate on all fronts," said Sharon Nelson, immediate past president of the Virginia State Bar and the president of Sensei Enterprises, a digital forensics company in northern Virginia.
"You can see the need of law enforcement on the one hand," she said. "On the other, the Fourth Amendment means nothing if you have to turn your life over to the government." The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches.
Police access to cellphones changed radically after a June ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. Officers still can extract information from cellphones of people who are arrested but now need a court-issued search warrant.
See the original post here:
Code cases: Police want phone access, but some pass