What is the Exclusionary Rule?

What is the Exclusionary Rule?

What is the Exclusionary Rule?

The Exclusionary Rule is a legal principle in the United States that prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. Specifically, it applies to evidence obtained through an unreasonable search or seizure, which violates the Fourth Amendment. Here’s a concise breakdown:

What It Does: The Exclusionary Rule ensures that evidence obtained unlawfully cannot be used against a defendant in a criminal trial. If the police or other law enforcement agents violate a person’s constitutional rights during a search or seizure, any evidence they collect as a result is considered tainted and inadmissible in court.

Origins: The rule was established by the Supreme Court in the case of Mapp v. Ohio. This decision clarified that evidence obtained through an unreasonable search or seizure (i.e., without a valid warrant or probable cause) cannot be used against the accused.
Exceptions: While the Exclusionary Rule is a powerful safeguard, there are exceptions:
Good Faith Exception: Evidence may not be excluded if officers reasonably relied on an invalid search warrant or binding appellate precedent.

Independent Source Doctrine: If evidence initially obtained unlawfully is later obtained through a valid search or seizure, it may become admissible.

The Exclusionary Rule aims to protect individuals’ constitutional rights and maintain the integrity of the justice system. It discourages law enforcement from obtaining evidence illegally. 

What are some real-life examples of the Exclusionary Rule?
How does this rule impact criminal investigations?
Are there any controversies surrounding the Exclusionary Rule?

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

The Exclusionary Rule significantly impacts criminal investigations in the following ways:

Deterrence: Law enforcement officers are deterred from conducting unlawful searches or seizures because they know that any evidence obtained illegally will be excluded from court proceedings. This encourages adherence to constitutional rights and proper procedures.

Evidence Suppression: If evidence is collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment (e.g., without a valid warrant or probable cause), it cannot be used against the accused. This can weaken the prosecution’s case and may lead to acquittals or reduced charges.

Police Practices: The Exclusionary Rule influences police practices by emphasizing the importance of respecting citizens’ rights. Officers receive training on lawful search and seizure methods to avoid violating constitutional protections.

Case Outcomes: When evidence is excluded due to the rule, cases may collapse or result in plea bargains. It affects trial dynamics and can impact the overall outcome of criminal proceedings.

What happens if evidence is accidentally obtained unlawfully?

If evidence is “accidentally” obtained unlawfully, it still falls under the Exclusionary Rule. The rule doesn’t distinguish between intentional or accidental violations of constitutional rights. If law enforcement inadvertently violates a person’s Fourth Amendment rights during a search or seizure, any evidence collected as a result would be considered tainted and inadmissible in court. The goal is to maintain the integrity of the justice system and protect individuals’ rights.

 

Here are some examples of accidentally obtained evidence

Unauthorized Searches: Law enforcement conducts searches without a proper warrant or lacks sufficient justification. For instance, entering a home without consent or a valid reason.

Deceitful Practices: Police gather evidence through deceptive means, such as misleading suspects during interrogations or using false pretenses to obtain information.

Coerced Confessions: Extracting confessions through coercion or intimidation violates a defendant’s rights and renders the evidence tainted.

Invasion of Privacy Rights: Collecting evidence by invading an individual’s privacy, like unauthorized wiretapping or surveillance, falls under this category.

The Exclusionary Rule: Purpose and Application

The exclusionary rule, established in Weeks v. United States (1914) and applied to the states in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), mandates that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a court of law. The primary purpose of this rule is to deter police misconduct and to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings by excluding illegally obtained evidence.

However, its application has been primarily limited to criminal cases. The Supreme Court has been reluctant to extend the exclusionary rule to civil cases, as evidenced by decisions in cases like United States v. Janis (1976), where the Court held that the rule does not apply to civil tax proceedings.

Government Use of Drones to Obtain Evidence

See 2024 Michigan Supreme Court Case –  Long Lake Township v. Maxon: Where a drone was used to obtain evidence and was challenged was allowed to be used and why.

What the Exclusionary Rule means in one long sentence: This rule states that if law enforcement officials obtain evidence through illegal means—like an unlawful search or seizure—the evidence generally cannot be used in a criminal trial against the person whose rights were violated.

At Komorn Law, we specialize in navigating the complex landscape of constitutional law. This recent Supreme Court decisions illustrates the nuanced legal analyses and strategic thinking that we bring to our practice, ensuring that our clients receive informed and effective representation.

Our commitment to understanding and influencing the trajectory of legal standards helps us advocate for a balanced approach to individual rights and public safety.

And now for something completely different….

Michigan Law: Motor vehicles; sale on Sunday unlawful

MCL – Section 435.251

In Michigan, it’s still technically illegal to sell a car on a Sunday, under Section 435.251 of the Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL). This peculiar law harkens back to historical blue laws, which restricted certain activities on Sundays for religious reasons. Despite changes in societal norms and the separation of church and state, this statute remains on the books, though rarely enforced.

Recent

What is the Exclusionary Rule?

What is the Exclusionary Rule?

What is the Exclusionary Rule?The Exclusionary Rule is a legal principle in the United States that prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. Specifically, it applies to evidence obtained through an...

read more

Other Articles

Government Drones in Your Life – Yes, They Made up a Reason

Government Drones in Your Life – Yes, They Made up a Reason

Long Lake Township v. Maxon The Costs Outweigh Benefits in Exclusionary Rule Application and the Slippery Slope of Fourth Amendment ProtectionsThe recent decision by the Michigan Supreme Court in Long Lake Township v. Maxon represents a significant shift in the...

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal OffenseCarjacking, the act of forcibly stealing an occupied vehicle, has long been a concern for public safety. It was a local and state issue until a series of violent incidents in the early 1990s that carjacking became a federal...

I am going to Canada – Can I bring my cannabis?

I am going to Canada – Can I bring my cannabis?

Borders and Cannabis and Money

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #41. Profit is its own reward.

If you bring your own cannabis to Canada. How does the Canadian government profit? 

They don’t so they will punish you if you get caught.

It’s simple. It’s about the money. That is the only reason it is now legal.

Cannabis Legalization in Canada

On October 17, 2018, Canada made a significant policy shift by legalizing marijuana for recreational use. The Cannabis Act came into effect, allowing Canadians to possess and use cannabis for non-medical purposes. However, there are still some important considerations:

Possession and Use: Canadians can legally possess and consume weed, subject to restrictions on the amount and how it was purchased. This includes various forms of cannabis, such as dried flower, edibles, extracts, and topicals.

Transportation Across the Border: Despite legalization within Canada, it remains strictly prohibited to transport cannabis across the Canadian border. This applies whether you’re entering Canada from another country or leaving Canada for another destination.

The ban includes all forms of cannabis products, even if you’re authorized to use it for medical purposes.

It’s essential to understand that this law applies even if cannabis is legal in both the source and destination countries.

You’re Not Welcome Here in Canada

Inadmissibility Due to Cannabis Conviction: If you ever find a reason to go to Canada and there aren’t that many. If you have a prior arrest or cannabis conviction, there’s a chance you may be turned away at the Canadian border. A DUI? Just stay home.

If you really must go. Seeking legal advice from an immigration expert is advisable in such cases.

Cannabis Legalization in Michigan

Michigan, too, has embraced cannabis legalization. However, there are nuances to be aware of:

  1. Legalization Status: As of now, it’s no longer against the law to own or grow marijuana in Michigan. However, retail stores didn’t open until 2021. Michigan citizens can legally cultivate up to 12 cannabis plants, compared to the limit of four in Ontario, Canada.
  2. Crossing the Border: Despite both Michigan and Canada legalizing cannabis, it’s still illegal for those in Michigan to buy cannabis in Canada and cross the border with marijuana. This issue affects Americans living near the border who might be tempted to take advantage of Canada’s nationwide legalization.

Conclusion

While cannabis enthusiasts can enjoy legal weed in both Canada and Michigan, crossing the border with it remains a complex matter. Whether you’re traveling north or south, leave your cannabis behind to avoid legal complications. Remember, the laws differ between countries, and what’s permissible in one place might not be in another. Stay informed and enjoy responsibly!

Disclaimer: This article provides general information and should not be considered legal advice. Always consult legal professionals for specific guidance.

 

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Squatters in Michigan

SquattersSquatting, in one definition is the unauthorized occupation of a property, can be a frustrating ordeal for property owners in Michigan. Understanding the relevant laws and procedures is crucial for regaining possession of your property.Squatting vs. Adverse...

From Canada.ca  The official website of the Government of Canada

Drugs, alcohol and travel

It is illegal to take cannabis – including products containing cannabis, such as edible cannabis, cannabis extracts and cannabis topicals, and all products containing CBD – across the Canadian border, whether you are entering or leaving the country:

  • No matter how much cannabis you have with you.
  • Even if you use cannabis for medical purposes in any form, including cannabidiol (CBD), unless authorized by Health Canada.
  • Even if you are travelling to or from a municipality, state or country where cannabis has been legalized or decriminalized.

At your destination

If you travel to other countries, including the United States, with any amount of cannabis in your possession, you could:

  • be charged with a criminal offence (This applies to all countries, whether cannabis is legal there or not.)
  • be denied entry at your destination if you have previously used cannabis or any substance prohibited by local laws
  • be denied entry to other countries in the future

It is your responsibility to learn about the laws, including the legal status of cannabis use and possession, in your destination country.

If you are travelling for business related to the cannabis industry, contact the foreign government office in Canada of the country you plan to visit.

For more information, consult our Travel Advice and Advisories.

Returning to Canada

It is illegal to enter Canada with cannabis, unless you have a prescription for a medication containing cannabis authorized by Health Canada.

If you are entering Canada and have cannabis with you in any form, you must declare it to the Canada Border Services Agency.

Not declaring cannabis in your possession at the Canadian border is a serious criminal offence. You could be arrested and prosecuted.

This information is taken directly from the Canadian Gov website section Drugs, alcohol and travel.

The Law

750.553 Occupancy of building without consent; violation; penalty; exception.

Sec. 553.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), an individual who occupies a building that is a single-family dwelling or 1 or both units in a building that is a 2-family dwelling and has not, at any time during that period of occupancy, occupied the property with the owner’s consent for an agreed-upon consideration is guilty of a crime as follows:
    (a) For a first offense, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both.
    (b) For a second or subsequent offense, a felony punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.
    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a guest or a family member of the owner of the dwelling or of a tenant.

Other Articles

What is the Exclusionary Rule?

What is the Exclusionary Rule?

What is the Exclusionary Rule?The Exclusionary Rule is a legal principle in the United States that prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. Specifically, it applies to evidence obtained through an...

I am going to Canada – Can I bring my cannabis?

I am going to Canada – Can I bring my cannabis?

Borders and Cannabis and MoneyFerengi Rule of Acquisition #41. Profit is its own reward.If you bring your own cannabis to Canada. How does the Canadian government profit?  They don't so they will punish you if you get caught. It's simple. It's about the money. That is...

Squatters in Michigan

Squatters in Michigan

SquattersSquatting, in one definition is the unauthorized occupation of a property, can be a frustrating ordeal for property owners in Michigan. Understanding the relevant laws and procedures is crucial for regaining possession of your property.Squatting vs. Adverse...

Vehicle Forfeiture in Canada – The Process of Taking

Vehicle Forfeiture in Canada – The Process of Taking

Thank You... and have a nice day eh!Disclaimer: We are not Attorneys in Canada.  This is an article of information obtained from various sources and presented here. We can only assume they are accurate.  If you ever find a reason to go to Canada and need a lawyer...we...

More Posts

Squatters in Michigan

Squatters in Michigan

SquattersSquatting, in one definition is the unauthorized occupation of a property, can be a frustrating ordeal for property owners in Michigan. Understanding the...

read more
Squatters in Michigan

Squatters in Michigan

Squatters

Squatting, in one definition is the unauthorized occupation of a property, can be a frustrating ordeal for property owners in Michigan. Understanding the relevant laws and procedures is crucial for regaining possession of your property.

Squatting vs. Adverse Possession: Key Differences

Michigan law differentiates between squatting and adverse possession. Squatting refers to the unlawful occupation of a property without the owner’s consent. In contrast, adverse possession allows someone who isn’t the legal owner to gain ownership rights under specific circumstances, as outlined in MCL § 600.5801. To establish adverse possession, an occupant must demonstrate:

  • Continuous occupancy: Occupying the property for at least 15 consecutive years (MCL § 600.5801(1)).
  • Color of title: Possessing a document, though potentially flawed, that suggests ownership (MCL § 600.5801(2)). However, simply paying rent or utilities doesn’t constitute color of title.
  • Payment of property taxes: Paying property taxes for at least ten consecutive years (MCL § 600.5801(2)).

Open, notorious, and hostile possession: Occupying the property openly, demonstrably, and claiming it as their own, even if mistakenly (MCL § 600.5801(3, 4)).

The burden of proof lies with the squatter to establish adverse possession. Notably, Michigan courts have interpreted these requirements strictly, making it difficult for squatters to gain ownership rights.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Self-Help Eviction: A Unique Feature in Michigan

Michigan offers a unique remedy for property owners facing squatters: self-help eviction. Unlike most states, Michigan law allows owners to take specific steps to make the property unappealing for squatters, encouraging them to leave voluntarily.

Important Caveats: It’s crucial to note that self-help eviction has limitations:

No removal of belongings: Owners cannot remove the squatter’s belongings or physically force them out.

Tenant vs. squatter: This method only applies to squatters, not tenants with a valid lease agreement. Evicting tenants requires a formal eviction process through the court system.

Potential legal repercussions: Improper use of self-help measures could result in legal action from the squatter. Consulting an attorney before taking any steps is highly recommended.

Getting Rid of Squatters

If you discover that someone unauthorized is occupying your property, contact the police. However, be aware that the police may consider it a civil issue and advise you to pursue eviction through the courts. It is important to note that squatting is considered a misdemeanor in Michigan, even if law enforcement may not be fully aware of this fact.

Instead of waiting on or dealing with the police, property owners in Michigan can take action to remove illegal occupants within the limits of the law:

 

  • Kindly request the squatter to vacate the premises within a specified timeframe.
  • Notify the squatter that legal measures will be pursued if they fail to comply promptly.
  • While the squatter is away from the property, consider changing the locks, securing entry points, boarding up windows, and implementing additional barriers like fences to prevent re-entry.

Squatters in Michigan

SquattersSquatting, in one definition is the unauthorized occupation of a property, can be a frustrating ordeal for property owners in Michigan. Understanding the relevant laws and procedures is crucial for regaining possession of your property.Squatting vs. Adverse...

Criminal Trespass: Legal Ramifications of Squatting

Squatting in Michigan is considered criminal trespass under MCL 750.553. This statute classifies trespassing as a misdemeanor for first offenses, punishable by fines up to $5,000 or imprisonment for up to 180 days, or both. Subsequent offenses become felonies with steeper penalties.

There are additional trespassing classifications based on the property type:

  • Residential property: Trespassing on a single-family or two-family dwelling is typically a misdemeanor.
  • Commercial property: Trespassing on commercial buildings, industrial sites, construction zones, or utility property can be charged as a felony.

Property owners who suspect squatting should contact law enforcement. Officers can remove squatters if they lack a legal right to be on the property.

The Law

750.553 Occupancy of building without consent; violation; penalty; exception.

Sec. 553.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), an individual who occupies a building that is a single-family dwelling or 1 or both units in a building that is a 2-family dwelling and has not, at any time during that period of occupancy, occupied the property with the owner’s consent for an agreed-upon consideration is guilty of a crime as follows:
    (a) For a first offense, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both.
    (b) For a second or subsequent offense, a felony punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.
    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a guest or a family member of the owner of the dwelling or of a tenant.

Other Articles

What is the Exclusionary Rule?

What is the Exclusionary Rule?

What is the Exclusionary Rule?The Exclusionary Rule is a legal principle in the United States that prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. Specifically, it applies to evidence obtained through an...

I am going to Canada – Can I bring my cannabis?

I am going to Canada – Can I bring my cannabis?

Borders and Cannabis and MoneyFerengi Rule of Acquisition #41. Profit is its own reward.If you bring your own cannabis to Canada. How does the Canadian government profit?  They don't so they will punish you if you get caught. It's simple. It's about the money. That is...

Squatters in Michigan

Squatters in Michigan

SquattersSquatting, in one definition is the unauthorized occupation of a property, can be a frustrating ordeal for property owners in Michigan. Understanding the relevant laws and procedures is crucial for regaining possession of your property.Squatting vs. Adverse...

Vehicle Forfeiture in Canada – The Process of Taking

Vehicle Forfeiture in Canada – The Process of Taking

Thank You... and have a nice day eh!Disclaimer: We are not Attorneys in Canada.  This is an article of information obtained from various sources and presented here. We can only assume they are accurate.  If you ever find a reason to go to Canada and need a lawyer...we...

More Posts

Squatters in Michigan

Squatters in Michigan

SquattersSquatting, in one definition is the unauthorized occupation of a property, can be a frustrating ordeal for property owners in Michigan. Understanding the...

read more
Vehicle Forfeiture in Canada – The Process of Taking

Vehicle Forfeiture in Canada – The Process of Taking

Thank You… and have a nice day eh!

Disclaimer: We are not Attorneys in Canada.  This is an article of information obtained from various sources and presented here. We can only assume they are accurate.  If you ever find a reason to go to Canada and need a lawyer…we wish you luck. Assume you do not have the rights a Canadian citizen would have and only be given basic human rights.

In Canada, vehicle forfeiture is a legal process that allows the government to permanently take possession of a vehicle. Let’s explore the reasons behind vehicle forfeiture and the steps involved.

Reasons for Vehicle Seizure:

Commission of a Crime:

  • Law enforcement agencies, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), can seize a vehicle temporarily if it is being used in the commission of a crime or if it serves as evidence of a crime.
  • Additionally, vehicles may be seized if they are abandoned or driven by someone prohibited from driving.

Violation of Laws or Regulations:

  • Vehicles can be seized if their owners violate certain laws or regulations. Examples include driving without valid insurance or registration or possessing a learner’s permit without an appropriate accompanying driver.

Vehicle Forfeiture:

Permanent Taking:

  • Vehicle forfeiture occurs after a legal process, usually when the vehicle was used in a crime or represents proceeds of crime (e.g., drug trafficking, money laundering).
  • Unlike seizure, forfeiture results in the permanent loss of the vehicle to the government.

Notification and Claim Process:

  • When a vehicle is seized, the owner is notified of the seizure and provided with information about the reason.
  • If the vehicle is not needed as evidence, the owner can reclaim it by following these steps:
    1. Contact the agency that seized the vehicle for specific requirements.
    2. Prove ownership with documentation (e.g., vehicle registration, bill of sale).
    3. Pay any fines or fees associated with the seizure.
    4. Retrieve the vehicle.

APPEALS in STATE or FEDERAL COURT
When you need to appeal a decision you feel is wrong.
Call Komorn Law
 (248) 357-2550

Civil Forfeiture Laws:

  • Canada’s civil forfeiture laws allow provincial governments to seize property without compensation when it is suspected of being used to commit an illegal act or acquired through illegal means.

 

Conclusion:

Understanding the difference between vehicle seizure and forfeiture is crucial. If your vehicle is subject to forfeiture, seek legal representation to navigate the process and protect your rights.

For more detailed information, you can refer to the full article.

Please note that this summary provides an overview, and it is recommend you consult legal professionals for personalized advice. 

Does Canada follow the US Constitution?

The U.S. Constitution spells out the specific powers of Congress, leaving everything else to the states. The Canadian Constitution does the opposite.

Provinces are limited to the powers explicitly given them by the Canadian Constitution and everything else is under the purview of the federal Parliament.

Canadian Bill of Rights

The Canadian Encyclopedia
The Canadian Bill of Rights recognizes the rights of individuals to life, liberty, personal security, and enjoyment of property. (It does not recognize “possession” of property, …

Want to learn more about the Canadian Charter of “Rights and Freedoms”.
Go here —> Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

In the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
When you need to go on the offense – to put the prosecution on defense
Komorn Law (248) 357-2550.

People v Williams Michigan COA – Police CPL Check

People v Williams Michigan COA – Police CPL Check

People v Williams
Michigan Court of Appeals
No 365299 (04/18/24)

MCL 28.425f permits a police officer to ask a person observed to be carrying a concealed weapon to produce their concealed pistol license (CPL) at any time and for any reason.

Makes possession of a concealed weapon a presumptive crime

Further, MCL 750.227 makes possession of a concealed weapon a presumptive crime, which can be rebutted by the suspect producing their CPL. Thus, a police officer has reasonable suspicion to  approach a person and ask for proof of a CPL after observing a bulge in the person’s clothing indicative of a hidden firearm.

The trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to suppress is reversed.

About it

Michigan Court of Appeals Case No. 365299, People v Williams, centers on a warrantless search and subsequent arrest. The details of the case are not explicitly mentioned in the available information, but the legal reasoning behind the decision is referenced.

The case cites MCL 750.227, which prohibits carrying a concealed pistol without a license. It also references previous cases (Henderson and Williams) that established the legality of a warrantless search under the “automobile exception” when there’s reasonable suspicion of a crime.

The relevant part of People v Williams seems to focus on justifying a traffic stop. The court apparently determined that an informant’s tip about a driver possessing a handgun amounted to reasonable suspicion, warranting the stop. This aligns with the established principle that police can conduct stops based on reasonable suspicion, even if it’s a lesser standard compared to the probable cause needed for arrests or searches.

While the case itself isn’t elaborated on, it highlights the legal basis for traffic stops based on reasonable suspicion, particularly when the suspicion involves potential gun possession.

Better have a real good attorney

Underage Workers in Factories Spark Fines, Investigations, and Legislation

Underage Workers in Factories Spark Fines, Investigations, and Legislation

A New York Times report exposed widespread child labor in a Michigan factory, prompting state and federal authorities to take action. The report focused on a Hearthside Food Solutions plant in Kentwood, alleging the presence of numerous underage workers.

Michigan’s Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity (LEO) and the U.S. Department of Labor launched investigations into the facility.

Additionally, Michigan’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) levied over $50,000 in fines against the plant for inadequate safety training and dangerous machinery.

Hearthside initially denied the allegations but has since paid some fines and is appealing others.

Federal and State Collaboration

The U.S. Department of Labor has increased oversight through an interagency task force focused on combating child labor. This initiative allows collaboration with other federal agencies, like the Department of Education, which offers training on child labor identification to school staff.

Strengthening Enforcement

State legislators are proposing bills to improve child labor enforcement and worker protection. One bill increases fines for violating child labor laws, aligning them with federal penalties. It also allows child workers to sue for damages and protects whistleblowers from retaliation.

Another bill proposes a complete overhaul of the work permit system in Michigan. Currently, teens obtain permits through schools. This bill would shift the responsibility to the LEO, creating a centralized database of legal teen workers and their employers. This system would enhance the LEO’s ability to identify potential child labor violations.

Immigrant Advocacy and Underlying Issues

Many underage workers in the exposed case were immigrants. Immigrant advocacy groups support the proposed bills, emphasizing provisions for compensating victims and protecting whistleblowers.

These measures could alleviate stress on immigrant families forced into child labor due to economic hardship.

However, these groups express concern that solely focusing on enforcement might drive children into even more dangerous and unregulated working environments.

As always addressing the (root causes) of child labor, such as poverty and lack of opportunity, is crucial for lasting solutions.

Better have a real good attorney