Municipal court的問題，透過圖書和論文來找解法和答案更準確安心。 我們找到下列各種有用的問答集和懶人包

The Power of Dignity: How Transforming Justice Can Heal Our Communities

為了解決Municipal court的問題，作者Pratt, Victoria 這樣論述：

The Honorable Victoria F. Pratt served as the chief judge of the Newark Municipal Court, is a professor at the Newark School of Criminal Justice, and has taught at the Rutgers School of Law. Her TED talk, ＂How Judges Can Show Respect,＂ has been viewed over thirty million times. She lives in Montclai

r, New Jersey.

The Collapse of Constitutional Remedies

為了解決Municipal court的問題，作者Huq, Aziz Z. 這樣論述：

An exploration of how and why the Constitution’s plan for independent courts has failed to protect individuals’ constitutional rights, while advancing regressive and reactionary barriers to progressive regulation. Just recently, the Supreme Court rejected an argument by plaintiffs that police off

icers should no longer be protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity when they shoot or brutalize an innocent civilian. Qualified immunity is but one of several judicial inventions that shields stateviolence and thwarts the vindication of our rights. But aren’t courts supposed to be protectors

of individual rights? As Aziz Huq shows in The Collapse of Constitutional Remedies, history reveals a much more tangled relationship between the Constitution’s system of independent courts and theprotection of constitutional rights. While doctrines such as qualified immunity may seem abstract, their

real-world harms are anything but. A highway patrol officer stops a person’s car in violation of the Fourth Amendment, violently yanked the person out and threw him to the ground, causing brain damage. A municipal agency fires aperson for testifying in a legal proceeding involving her boss’s family

-and then laughed in her face when she demanded her job back. In all these cases, state defendants walked away with the most minor of penalties (if any at all). Ultimately, we may have rights when challenging the state, but noremedies. In fact, federal courts have long been fickle and unreliable gua

rdians of individual rights. To be sure, through the mid-twentieth century, the courts positioned themselves as the ultimate protector of citizens suffering the state’s infringement of their rights. But they have more recentlyabandoned, and even aggressively repudiated, a role as the protector of in

dividual rights in the face of abuses by the state. Ironically, this collapse flows not decisions that the Framers took when setting up federal courts in the first place. A powerful historical account of the how the expansion of the immunity principle generated yawning gap between rights and remedie

s in contemporary America, The Collapse of Constitutional Remedies will reshape our understanding of why it has become so difficult to effectively challenge crimescommitted by the state.

公共場所人臉辨識技術運用於刑事偵查之研究──以隱私合理期待為中心

為了解決Municipal court的問題，作者吳維雅 這樣論述：

人臉辨識技術（Facial Recognition Technology，以下簡稱FRT）在台灣於警務執法應用上，已相當普遍，但卻無一套規範，供執法機關作為執行依據；而司法者在現行法體系的解釋下，對於FRT之執法應用所應權衡之社會安全與隱私保護價值，因尚無此類案件繫屬於法院，故針對警方運用FRT為偵查工具之適法性判斷，恐仍欠缺相關意識。而FRT之運用，涉及個人高度隱私期待利益，有建立規範保護之必要，但究竟如何規範始為妥適？個人隱私利益與科技偵查技術發展之間孰輕孰重？如何權衡？個人得否抗衡國家執法機關以FRT配合其他政府資料庫的資訊使用於刑事案件辨識查找確認人別？國家機關是否得施以無合理嫌疑（

Reasonable Suspicion）或相當理由(Probable Cause)之FRT監控？當國家偵查技術之精進發展，有助打擊犯罪，維護社會安全，但當偵查技術之發展與個人隱私保護利益發生巨大衝突，司法機關應如何取捨？如何調和此兩種利益？上述問題在FRT已大量使用於警務系統之我國，未見系統性探討與提出解決方案。本研究擬針對上述問題提出若干可供思考的論述方向。承上，本文擬嘗試以美國聯邦憲法增修條文第四條（以下簡稱「美憲增修第四條」）演繹出的實務判解為框架，於第一章先說明本文研究動機、目的、範圍、限制、研究方法與鋪陳架構；第二章就FRT相關的技術原理以及廣泛使用下可能產生的隱憂，作一簡要說明；

第三章就美憲增修第四條下有關搜索（Search）的理論發展及規範內容作一概述；第四章係針對有關執法部門在公共場所取用FRT所得之人臉資料，藉此得知個人身分及位置資訊等作為，配合相關美國聯邦最高法院（以下簡稱「聯邦最高法院」）及下級法院有關判例、判決為說明，試圖建構出FRT執法應用在憲法適法性的定位探討，並初嘗從社會學理論之觀點，探尋合理隱私期待的界線與範圍，復探求制憲者於修訂美憲增修第四條時的意圖，以為認定合理隱私期待的一些指引方針；第五章提出包括華盛頓州州法、華盛頓州轄區內的金郡自治條例，以及國會審議中的相關聯邦法案（草案），規範有關政府部門使用FRT的相關內容作分析比較；第六章由探討FRT

的使用在我國現行法制下的適用可能性，藉此檢視現行法欠缺之現狀，說明建立制度規範的必要性，再以前開比較法作為基礎，提供可行的立法參考方向，並以從事司法實務的角度，對偵查目的下以FRT取用人臉影像資料，在解釋論上提出可能的解方；第七章則係針對本文提出結論，並期許在不久未來，偵查目的下的FRT取用，相關的法律規範能夠儘速完善建制出來。