The biggest benefit of the Fourth Amendment is that it deters searches. A search under the Fourth Amendment is “when a governmental employee or an agent of the government violates an individual 's reasonable expectation of privacy” (Legal Information). If the government were to invade a citizen’s property no law enforcement shall search the human, but upon probable cause. The court will be the one to tell if the search falls under the Fourth Amendment, if it were to fall under the Fourth Amendment the citizen would not be searched. In addition, when the law enforcement believes searching a citizen is reasonable, no excessive force shall be used.
ARGUMENT I. The District Court erred in denying the Motion to Suppress because the evidence obtained from Assante’s personal laptop resulted from an intrusive, non-routine border search conducted without reasonable suspicion. The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right in people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . .”U.S.
Defore’s objection did not favor one item over the other. If any of the items were admissible, his objection does not succeed. In this situation it is not necessary to find out whether the items are lawfully owned. There are situations when items, not contraband at all, may be seized and submitted into evidence. In this case, if the coat had been priced fifty-one dollars rather than fifty dollars, it would have been a lawful arrest because the police officer might apprehend the defendant if a felony had been committed and there was a reasonable cause to think that he did it.
After reviewing Justice Brennan’s dissenting opinion, I cannot agree with his argument that a conducting a protective sweep surpasses the purpose of the Terry v. Ohio decision. Justice Brennan agreed that a protective sweep was not a full-blown search, but it was much more intrusive than a limited pat down for weapons or the frisk of an automobile (Sifferlen, 1991). Also, Justice Brennan also stated he believed officers’ should possess probable cause to initiate a protective sweep of a home (Sifferlen, 1991). The Terry v. Ohio decision permits law enforcement officers to perform a pat down of the outer clothing, when the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the subject he or she is dealing with, is armed and dangerous (Hall, 2015). The main purpose of Terry v. Ohio decision is to locate weapons that may be used to hurt the
"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". The 4th amendment was made based on the Founding Fathers ' experience with the Kings agents and the all purpose writ of assistances that they used abusively. Without the 4th amendment, we would be at the mercy of the police because they could come into our household, search anything and take whatever they want. "A reasonable expatiation of privacy" the 4th amendment secures the protection of the
Where the weapons were obtained in the sandy hook shooting and the Orlando shooting were dramatically different. Lanza took the weapons from his mother who owned them legally, but Lanza was unable to have firearms because of his mental illness. Mateen was cleared by the federal background check even though the FBI did some monitoring on him. His radical beliefs caught the eye of the federal government, but someone 's religion can not be used to stip individuals of their rights. Lastly he explains that, “cultural beliefs are significantly related to people’s opinions about gun control, but the strongest, most consistent predictors of people’s gun control preferences are their political beliefs and affiliations,” (Wozniak 2).
The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed the conviction stating that the MDCA was infact unconstitutional, because King’s expectation of privacy was greater than the interest of Maryland in using DNA samples for the purpose of identification. Maryland v. King was taken to the Supreme Court where the Court of Appeals ruling was reversed, because the judges believed DNA testing was in the legitimate interest of the state and was part of an arrest procedure, so therefore does not require a warrant. Another incident questioned when a warrant was needed during a traffic
In Olmstead v. California, the court set forth the trespass doctrine for fourth amendment protection the doctrine was based on the concept that that the fourth amendment protects “persons, houses, papers, and effects” when these entities were located within a “constitutionally protected area.” However, in the Katz v. United States case, Justice Stewarts opinion he stated that the trespass doctrine could no longer be regarded as controlling because the trespass doctrine was no longer the exclusive test. Significantly the majority opinion in Katz declared that the fourth amendment "protects individual privacy against certain kinds of governmental intrusion, but its protections go further, and often have nothing to do with privacy at all." The fourth amendment also protects a citizen 's sense of dignity and his right of personal security. The Government 's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner 's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The fact that the electronic device employed to achieve that end did not happen to penetrate the wall of the booth can have no constitutional
Most people have the standpoint that because it doesn’t affect them, they shouldn’t really bother with doing anything about it. However, doesn’t the NSA breach our Fourth Amendment rights? The Fourth Amendment guarantees, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," but doesn’t mass phone data collection violate that? Legally to search someone you need a warrant but the NSA completely bypasses that. But there is also the problem that if the NSA become completely transparent, the terrorist and other people the NSA is trying to catch, will have more knowledge as how to not get caught, which would just make the NSA ineffective.
Claiming the thermal evidence was a violation of the fourth amendment right, your right to privacy within your home and to legal searches. After this case was sent to the Supreme Court, which I agree is where this case belonged, they found that the lower courts judgments were wrong in admitting this evidence. And after reading the facts of the case fully and Justice Scalia’s court opinion, I would have to agree that this case requires further inquiry into the original intent of the fourth amendment. I think that we as citizens do have a right to privacy within are home, however I think that if someone is doing something illegal within their home then there should be proper measurements that are taken to stop them. The reason I think the court should have ruled in the way they did is because this is a case where is begs the question how far can someone go using technology to obtain information that normally would have caused the officer to break the law to
However, the public will deem the search excessive use of force on the accused performed by the RCMP officer. This search would increase public outrage regarding excessive use of police powers as they believe the search could have performed in a less intrusive mean. Furthermore, the “throat hold” should not be performed on anyone especially females as it can result in health complications (Atherley & Hickman, 2014). However, it is necessary to note that the “throat hold” is a common practice used by the RCMP drug squad to prevent drug traffickers from destroying evidence. This practice is not illegal as it is used to prevent the swallowing of drugs that may be in the accused mouth that will aid in substantiating the charge.
Although not all the articles that are protested are removed, they are limited to appease the American people (Hattem). Finally, in a Texas Law Review, Ronald Sievert claims that people who oppose the Patriot Act have no way to defend their opposition to the Act. He believes that people and organizations like the ACLU are misinformed by the media and the internet about what the Patriot Act actually does. He says the Patriot Act is created in part to increase communication between the FBI, NSA, and CIA. Another claim the ACLU has made is that the government can look at your email accounts and computer without a warrant, which Sievert again says is false.
The fourth amendment can be beneficial but, it can also to some U.S. citizens be invasion of privacy. 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,” some U.S. citizens believe that Law Enforcement, the Government and the NSA are violating the required guidelines of the Fourth Amendment. The NSA is conducted a mass U.S. surveillance not to believe specific individuals may be engaging in terrorist activity, but instead to believe all of us may be engaging in such activity. The government mass surveillance proves that U.S. citizens are considered suspects at all times. With the Patriot Act the NSA has access to
Lawmakers need to open their eyes and look at the bigger picture. Legalizing marijuana can make the state some money and there are many benefits to it. Legalizing marijuana won’t benefit at all for the big corrupt pharmaceutical companies, if the cannabis is passed as a drug for health issues. Maybe that’s why lawmakers haven’t maybe won’t pass the law to legalize Marijuana. Yes the companies can get involved but then somehow it will get corrupt and won’t benefit the citizens.