The constitutionality of the authority of the State under the Act to retain and use fingerprints upon withdrawal of charges has been confirmed, as well as no domineering duty was imposed on the State to inform the person of their rights to request the destruction or return of the fingerprints following an acquittal, withdrawal, or stay of the charge for which the fingerprints were obtained. Fingerprints is tiny evidence. The fingerprints along provide lone(prenominal) circumstantial evidence and as Just ice Sopinka concluded in R. v. Lepage fing! erprints are not subject to hard and fast rule to put up guilt, but should be interpreted in corporation with all circumstances of the case and all of the evidence adduced. Thereofre an commentary of an charge as to the fingerprints origin is extremely valuable. However, absence of an translation by itself is not sufficient to draw a negative inference as to the assuseds guilt; rather this ill circumstance should be viewed...If you want to get a full essay, sanctum order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com
If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment