Argumentative Essay On The Fourth Amendment

One of the cases is the City of Ontario v. Quon in California that went from 2009 to 2010. The cases involves police officers who were given text-messaging pagers and one of the officers messages were read without their permission. The police department did not have an official text messaging privacy policy but they did have a general policy stating “employees shouldn't expect privacy when using internet, e-mail and internet use and can be monitored with or without notice.” The police department verbally told them the texting pagers were considered e-mail and were subject to general policy. In the supreme court they decided that the reading of the texts was justified because it was reasonable.

Mapp took to court when police forcibly entered her home in Cleveland, Ohio without showing any warrant. The police suspected Mapp of harboring a bomb suspect in her home and possessing illegal betting equipment. After she refused to let them in, the police torn off the screen door and broken the glass to gain entry. Mapp argued it was an invasion of privacy along with a violation to the Bill of Rights and Constitution. While the police did not find either of the two things they were looking for; they did find other illegal material in

Freedom of speech is explicitly guaranteed as a right to citizens in the First Amendment. It is true, though, that over the course of history, various limitations and exceptions have been put on these rights. One of the most well-known is the case of Schenck v. U.S. in 1919, which established that speech that presents a clear and present danger is not protected. Various other cases have also established that speech that incites crime or presents obscene material that violates the values of society are also prohibited. Therefore, colleges should definitely prevent people who have a background of violence and crime from speaking at their campuses for the safety of their students.

This was also made for a direct response to abuse. This amendment is part of the bill of rights, which are the first ten amendments of the United States. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress .

Since due process is how we define the order and the correct way of doing things, this is how it applies: In the Terry versus Ohio case, Terry believe that officers should have probable cause before the officer was able to stop and frisk individuals. Under the Fourth Amendment, officers have the right to stop and frisk without probable cause, meaning the process McFadden used was correct. On the other hand, in Miranda versus Arizona, Miranda had not been informed of his right to remain silent before giving his confession of committing the crimes he had been accused of. In turn his confession was not valid. If the officers had used the correct process and made Miranda aware of his right to remain silent, his confession could have been used in trial.

2. What would have been the proper investigative steps to take? The right investigative steps would be to watch the man and when they had probable cause or enough evidence for a warrant then they could take action. They could ask to come in and if he lets them in and they find something in plain view then they can use that to arrest him.

Franklin, J. (2000).Three Strikes and You're Out of Constitutional Rights - The Prison Litigation Reform Act's Three Strikes Provision and Its Effect on Indigents, 71 U. Colo. L. Rev. 191. This article hypothesizes that the PLRA Three Strikes provision or law goes against the equal protection element provided for in the Fifth Amendment due process clause and hence, it is constitutionally suspect. The methods used to find information and data to support the hypothesis are qualitative whereby the researcher reviews past documents and records regarding the three strikes provision.

The trials of Sacco and Vanzetti goes on about how they were falsely executed for murdering a guard and armed robbery because of their immigrant background . After the murderers escaped the scene with the money the police searched a garage to claim a car it was connected to. Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested because victims said it was two Italian men who committed the crime but neither of them had previous trouble with the law. No one really know if they did it because witnesses only said there was two Italian men who did it when any Italian could’ve been a suspect. This trial shows that the 1920’s were prejudiced against certain ethnic group, specifically Italians.

Sandra Petrocelli, is an Assistant District Attorney that prosecuted Steven Harmon and James King and called them Monsters. Kathy O’Brien, is Steven’s attorney and she tries to make sure that he receives a not guilty verdict. James King is Steven’s older friend that asked Steven to be in his crew to rob a drugstore. Richard “Bobo” Evans was accused of being in the store during the robbery and he wanted a lighter sentence so he testified against Steven and James King. Osvaldo Cruz, is another gang member that was a part of the robbery.

In part 2 of the story we find out that he lied to get Tom Robinson in jail. After this we come to the conclusion that the blacks and some whites in Maycomb must not like him. Bob Ewell proved himself to be just a rude man when we read what he did to Atticus in chapter 22. “Mr.Bob Ewell stopped Atticus on the post office corner, spat in his face, and told him he’d get him if it took the rest of his life,”. This is what the text says happens the night of the trial.

Another recent court case that remarkably challenges the Fourth Amendment is, Riley v. California. The case covered the right of officers to obtain information from cellular devices. The case ended with the need for warrants to be issued to legally search cellphones. There are court cases that will always go on fighting these rights constantly due to error or sheer ignorance, but the natural rights of citizens

Though the states power regarding their voting laws had been restricted by the federal government, recentness has given back said power to the states. As aforementioned, Section 5 is no longer enforceable. But why? Section 4(b) was deemed unconstitutional in 2013 because of its “coverage formula” (civilrights.org), which used outdated methods to determine a states pre-clearance in Section 5. With Section 5 no longer enforced, Texas’ new voter ID law was able to take affect but is it compliant with federal

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of the personal residences of citizens, and also outlines the right to privacy that is awarded to citizens of the United States. The fourth amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things being seized. Even after the ratification of the Fourth Amendment, it was permissible for evidence that was seized and collected without a warrant and in violation of the Fourth Amendment to be admissible in court. This remained the common practice until 1914.

Pursuant to Md. Code (1984, 2014 Repl. Vol., 2015 Suppl.), § 10-222(h)(3) of the State Government Article (“SG”), we may only reverse or modify the decision of an administrative agency if that decision is: (i) unconstitutional; (ii) exceeds the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the final decision maker; (iii) results from an unlawful procedure; (iv) is affected by any other error of law; (v) is unsupported by competent, material, and substantial evidence in light of the entire record as submitted; or (vi) is arbitrary or capricious. SG § 10-222(h)(3). “‘On appellate review of the decision of an administrative agency, this Court reviews the agency’s decision, not the circuit court’s decision.’” Long Green Valley Ass’n v. Prigel Family Creamery, 206 Md. App. 264, 273 (2012) (quoting Halici v. City of Gaithersburg, 180 Md.

In this case Kyllo v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled against the vitric of the lower courts on a 5 to 4 vote. The questions that need to be answered in this case, in my opinion serve a bigger purpose then the case at hand. The case itself is about a man named Danny Kyllo who was growing marijuana plants inside his home illegally. An officer of the U.S Interior Department got a tip that this man was illegally growing plants inside his home and went to investigate this. Obviously a tip from an unknown is not enough information to get a warrant to search the man’s property.