On the point of officer safety Riley argued that the data on a cell phone could not be used as a weapon to endanger officer safety or to aid the arrestee 's escape from custody. An officer could physically search the cell phone and it 's case for weapons, such as a razor blade. The State countered that the suspect 's cell phone could be used to call associates to aid him, which would affect officer safety. Allowing the officer to search the cell phone without a warrant might give him/her warning that someone is coming. On the point of protecting evidence from concealment or destruction, Riley argued that once a cell phone has been seized, there is no need for the officer to search the digital contents to protect it.
Personal records given to the NSA or government without a probable cause or reasoning for a search warrant repels everything the Fourth Amendment represents. As said by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis “Now the right to life has come to the right to be let alone” with the government and other associations receiving the right to track records at any moment takes away from the feeling of security the Fourth Amendment is supposed to give citizens. The confidentiality of individual’s personal belongings, feeling of security, and freedom from governmental obstruction is what makes the Fourth Amendment important to society, although search-warrants can be issued with causes that seem reasonable.
Amendment 1 ¬ Freedoms, Petitions, and Assembly- This amendment protects religious liberties meaning there will be no law symbolizing a national religion or persecuting somebody if they chose to follow a certain religion. Under this amendment, citizens are also guaranteed freedom of speech meaning the right to express any opinions without censorship, the right to press meaning television, newspapers, magazines and other media sources can publish truthful reports, even if they may be controversial, without the government interfering, the right to peacefully assemble meaning someone can gather together with others without fear from the government that they are a mob, the right to complain, and seek assistance of the government without fear of
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 to be seized.” To me, this means, in order for the American people to feel that they and their belongings are safe, only an official sworn into office can issue a warrant. This warrant can also be issued with probable cause, or reasonable belief, that some crime has been committed. Upon issuance of said warrant, the sworn official must specify exactly where police are allowed to search and the exact things or people they are allowed to look for and take in their investigation.
There are people who think it’s a great idea because police and catch criminals easier. In the other hand people think it is invading our privacy. The ACLU believes that the government is invading our privacy and they should not be able to search our phone without a warrant and should not know the location we visit or currently at. The can also get you contacts,
They also can 't search or take items from you without a warrant. A warrant is only issued by Judge and only items on the one I can be seized. The fifth amendment, formally charged with a indictment. You cannot have double jeopardy which means only get one chance to charge you. You don 't have to make yourself look guilty.
at 924. Since the Second Amendment offers no protections for the concealed carrying of weapons, states can place any restrictions without violating the amendment. This includes the highly debated “good cause” provision enacted by California. Id. at 939.
Apple is trying to protect the American people that own any apple product from the FBI. The FBI wants apple to unlock the phone from the San Bernardino 's but Apple is not doing it because it is against the 4th amendment. Since the FBI can’t get into it because Apple can not give permission to the FBI, also they don’t have any reason to look at the phone so Apple did not allow tat to happen. My opinion on this matter is that apple is doing the right thing, if the government was able to get a hold of all the information that a single person had on their phone, I am pretty sure people would be embarrassed because of all the personal information on their phones. If Apple gave them the right to look through their phone than the 4th amendment would be compromised and then that can start an up riot.
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 to be seized" (Administrative Office, n.d.) The key to this is unreasonable searches and seizures. I am using a government-owned device and if my employer believes I have something to hide that could be hurtful or harmful, he should be allowed to search my device without waiting for a warrant. The only time it would be infringing on my rights protected by the Fourth Amendment is if he is being unreasonable and only checking whenever he felt like being nosey. As it is a government given device, it 's not mine in the first place and I should be aware of that. Computers and phones given by the government have their own stipulations to that and searching them is one.
The Fourth Amendment also provides citizens with privacy. One way it does this by not having the NSA listen to citizens’ phone calls. (4.4)This allows people the privacy of having their own private conversations; it gives them their right of privacy. Similarly, the NSA does not read citizen’s emails. (4.4) Again, this allows people the privacy of having their own private conversations.
In conclusion on passing the Michael Brown Jr law to equip police officers with body cameras that are useful evidence for a trial for a case of police brutality. Its only of time for a police officer can prove that it was necessary to use lethal force by using a body camera could clear their name. The use of body cameras are also useful for the victims’ families so when they play the recording’s at the trial they can finally find out if the officer had every right to use lethal force to stop the whole situation or using lethal force was not necessary. Passing the law to equip the law could help justice for victims of police brutality as well heling the officers to prove they used lethal force was
The whole point of the Fourth Amendment is not to completely stop the police, because the amendment can be waived if an officer has a warrant, or a person’s consent. The Fourth Amendment states that generally a search or seizure is illegal unless there is a warrant, or special circumstances. Technically stating that a citizen is protected by the Fourth Amendment, until a government employee gets a warrant, and then they can invade a citizen’s privacy. Also people state that the FISA Court’s warrants are constitutional, but the NSA’s surveillance is unconstitutional. Even though people do not like the NSA’s surveillance, the NSA is legal because the FISA Court that the people did not mind makes it legal.
This also empowers the attackers, as they know that their victims cannot legally fight back with lethal force. Stand your ground laws create a situation where criminals are immediately stopped in the act. To put it normatively, the common man should not be punished for taking a life in self-defense, and should not be forced to retreat when his life is threatened by another person. The only people whom this law directly hurts are those who chose to perpetuate violent crime. Repealing stand your ground laws would simply protect those who threaten the lives of