Accept. According to the city ordinance rules, it is considered a crime to display any symbol that may have an effect f arousing anger or resentment. The stipulations further indicate that this should not be allowed on the basis of color, creed and gender. Spreading hate messages and propaganda is illegal in that it significantly contributes to increased violence in a locality. Using graffiti, vandalism and burning crosses with the intention of creating a climate that is characterized by fear among the members of the community is a crime punishable by law. Citizens have the right to stay in a conducive environment free from fear in order to exercise their duties and play their roles effectively. Vandalism in itself is a crime and anybody found dealing in such a way will face the full force of the law. In essence, the actions of the perpetrators may seem to be of a smaller effect, but their long term effect cannot be ignored. Through the graffiti and vandalism, they will send the wrong message to other groups, leading to the development of some cold war. Everybody in the society has a role to play in order to keep the town safe from such activities. In combating crime, the bylaws give everybody a responsibility to be vigilant and report to the authorities any crime they may come across. Further, the constitution gives them the power to make reasonable arrests and submit the perpetrators to the authorities for investigations. However, due to the sensitivity of the matter, it would be dangerous for private parties to arrest the perpetrators. As such, the authorities are on the watch out, and such arrests related to these incidents will be made and the culprits be punished before they spoil the society.
I request for provisions in this matter. As much as your request is made in good faith, it beats logic to use a helicopter in the search of the remote property. This is due to a number of reasons. For instance, the costs of using the helicopter are high, and it would seem insensitive to employ this method in making arrests. According to the laws of the United States of America, individual rights can, at times, be infringed at the expense of a greater good. Marijuana is an illegal substance in America; there is no doubt about that. Anybody found handling such an illegal substance is punishable by law. The government is determined to bring to an end the tendency of individuals handling such substances.
All said and done; your reasons for using a helicopter in the search are invalid. The American laws stipulate that the Government officers have the right to infringe the individual right of privacy in circumstances that they have a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. In such circumstances, individual rights of privacy are suspended. The so-called invasion of privacy has no bearing at all on this matter and though all means, whether through trespassing or using diplomacy, the authorities have the right to search any premise they feel there is some wrong happening. In order to make timely arrest, search warranties are sometimes not a necessity. In acquiring them, the officers of the state could end up finding it difficult to arrest the suspects. Because of this, therefore, it would seem to beat the logic on concentrating to acquire the warranties of arrest and fail to make the actual arrests because the suspects escaped. Aerial searches have not been standardized and as such, the right of privacy may have to be infringed in order to make the arrests. Precedent
Reject. In the United States of America, abortion is prohibited by law. Abortion is against the human morality because it means that an innocent child is killed in the process (Noonan, 2009). The law clearly indicates that anybody found by the authorities taking part in an abortion activity will be punished by law. The protests that we have seen in the televisions, in the recent periods portray a negative picture to the morality of our nation. However, you must be aware that there are two things involved in such a scenario. The authorities have the right to make an arrest when they have a reason to belief that a crime has been committed. Abortion is a crime; hence those taking part ought to be arrested. However, it is also important to note that the law recommends the use of reasonable force to make the arrests, Because of this, it would be going against the stipulations of the law if in the process of making the arrests, and the suspects are injured. A better solution should, therefore, be found to control the situation from turning out to be an ugly one.
When it comes into matters of the law, it will be very wrong to take political sides. As much as we differ in ideologies, it is for the common good that the law is strictly followed to the letter. The freedom of speech is something that is highly valued in America. However, this freedom is limited to making sensible things. Despite protesters having the right to protest as a means of expressing themselves, there are some limitations and boundaries that they are limited to. Nobody is above the law, and as such, protesting with the aim of protecting some wrong doing will never be tolerated in the boundaries of America. The television coverage has the right to provide information to the citizens, and despite the fact that they are making the situation seem too large, nothing can be done against them. Despite the efforts that the nation is putting up to reduce abortion cases, instituting a buffer zone of 500 ft' around abortion clinics will not work as a means of preventing the protestors. Perhaps the best policy would be to educate the public on the reasons why they should avoid abortions.
Reject. It is against the public policy and the laws of America to carry out arbitrary searches based on inadequate evidence. The Fourth Amendment to the US constitution effectively states to the effect that private citizens have the right to privacy, which shall not be infringed by any individual, whether in force or not. The detectives have been said to be relying on the information that they collect from the public. This is a bad step made in bad faith since some of the information received has led to unsuccessful searches. Interrogating anybody who comes across for their knowledge about drug use in America is in bad taste in to a large extent, it would be very difficult to collect the right information. The move by the members of the city council to criticize such actions is, in the long run, good to the Americans. In making the searches, the authorities need at least to have evidence behind reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt test is put away when they rely on the information they collect from the public without any prove. When the police invade a private house for some form of search, they ought to be sure that a mistake or a crime has been committed. Failure to establish so may tarnish the name of the detectives, who are supposed to be on a high alert instead of depending on the information from the public with no basis.
Reject. There is no doubt that drugs and drug use are among the most committed crimes in America (Bray et al. 1999). Further, there is no doubt that the government is dedicated to reducing this problem. However, in so doing, it would be important the government does so while at the same time, respecting individual privacy. Attempting to search all vehicles without any form of suspicion is catastrophic in itself. Forcing oneself to make a search on somebody’s premises when there is no reason for suspicion is against America’s public policy. Not only will it cause fear to the private citizens, the process in itself would make the citizens fear for their privacy. This could see them arise in protests against such a move. It would, therefore, be wise not to engage in such searches.
Bray, R. M., & Marsden, M. E. (1999). Drug use in metropolitan America. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Noonan, J. T. (2009). A private choice, abortion in America in the seventies. New York: Free Press.