Our founding fathers created the Bill Of Rights which are the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. One of the most important amendments is the Fourth Amendment. It 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”(p. 11). What are our founding fathers were trying to do is keep our country from a police state, a state in which law enforcement could enter our homes without probable cause. This protection provides the citizens of the …show more content…
For example a drone is ideal for SWAT operations, crowd control, criminal missing person, forensics crime scene, gangs, narcotics, search and rescue, vehicle crashes and corrections (prisons). However, using drones for the constant surveillance of someone at their personal property is illegal unless the law enforcement agency obtains a warrant. There are many cases that have been thrown out due to be in violation of the fourth amendment. In the case Kyllo v. the United States (2001)” Suspicious marijuana was being grown in petitioner Kyllo’s home in a triplex, agents used a thermal imaging device to scan the triplex to determine if the amount of heat emanating from it was consistent with the high-intensity lamps typically used for indoor marijuana growth. The scan showed that Kyllo’s garage roof and a side wall were relatively hot compared to the rest of his home and substantially warmer than the neighboring units. Based in part on the thermal imaging, a judge issued a warrant to search Kyllo’s home, where the agents found marijuana growing. After Kyllo was indicted on a federal drug charge, he unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home and then entered a conditional guilty plea. The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed, upholding the thermal imaging on the ground that Kyllo had shown no subjective expectation of privacy because he had made no attempt to conceal the
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
Current Courts Opinion In a 5-4 opinion the Supreme Court decides that the Governments use of a thermal imagining device that is not available to the public to gather information of a home that would be unknown without using the device is a violation of the Fourth Amendment search and is deemed unreasonable. The majority opinion argued that a person has the right to privacy in their own home. This argument is then rejected. Judge Scalia argued that there is a fine line when it comes to the Fourth Amendment and because they did not “enter” the home, it was not an invasion of privacy.
If a natural disaster strikes my area and the power is out for weeks, one of the limitations would be that the people would not feel that safe. Security wouldn't be enforced and since there is no security, there could be several possibilities of theft. Another limitation would be searches for any and everything. Both of these limitations should be practiced, so even if there is a national disaster we could be ready. The 4th amendment can be used as an explanation of how the limits
According to the Fourth Amendment, people have the right to be secure in their private property, and may only be searched with probable cause. However, in a recent case, this right was violated by the government. An Oregon citizen, with the initials of DLK, was suspected of growing marijuana in his home. The federal government used a thermal imager to scan his home, and were later given a warrant to physically search his home. However, many remain divided over whether or not this scan was constitutional, as there was no warrant at the time of the scan.
The Fourth Amendment requires a probable cause for arrest. Substantially, particular things are needed to legally conduct a search or seizure. This incorporates arrest, so a search, a seizure, or an arrest cannot take place without reason. Not to mention, there must be a "court order" for Apple to give the government "customer data." So, since a “court order” must be in place for Apple to give the government “customer data,” that “court order” would have to also take place for an arrest that could conceivably follow.
US NEWS informs us, “Drones in Seattle and Miami are equipped with video cameras capable of taking daytime and nighttime video, as are drones used by the Texas Department of Public Safety.” In 1989 Supreme Court decision ruled that police may use helicopters to peer into semiprivate areas including the backyard of a house without first obtaining a warrant. The Congressional Research Service furthermore states “The legal issues discussed in this report will likely remain unresolved until the civilian use of drones becomes more widespread”. The fourth amendment prohibits any search and seizures without a warrant.
The 14th Amendment is one of the most influential Amendments in the history of our nation. The amendment defines what it means to be a US citizen and protects certain rights of the people. There are three important “clauses” in the 14th amendment, each of which are still important today. The clauses are; the Citizenship Clause, which gave individuals who were born in the United States, especially African Americans at the time Citizenship, the Due Process Clause, which protects the first amendment rights of the people from being taken away by any government without due process, the third and final clause is the Equal protection clause, this clause states that there may be no discrimination against people by the law. The 14th amendment was important
Back in 1975, there was a major case called, Payton V. New York. Theodore Payton was suspected of murdering a gas station manager, they found evidence within his home that connected him with the crime. What caused the problem was the fact New York had a law that allowed unwarranted searches if the person was a suspect. Based off the oral argument presented by Oyez, the police said it didn't count as the evidence because it was in public view when entering the home. It had to be appealed before it was determined as unconstitutional.
Personal Privacy There are many reasons why all counter-terrorism efforts potentially violate the 4th amendment. The government thinks that looking into other people’s privacy will be a better way to find their so called enemies but in doing so, that will also mean that they have to look into people’s information and some of those people may not have caused any crime of any sort. One targeting the wrong people for crimes they never committed, two searching a person without a valid warrant/reason, and invading in someone else's privacy without them knowing. It will be explained as to why it isn't right for the government to be spying on civilians as an excuse to save the country from potential enemies.
The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures (Hall, 2014). In the scenario, it is important to remember that the employer is a government entity and the Fourth Amendment was originally designed to limit government authority as it applies to unreasonable searches and seizures (Hall, 2014). You would not be able to make a strong argument that the government violated the Fourth Amendment in this scenario. The property, whether it is a laptop, cell phone, or tablet, belongs to the government. Government entities have policies that employees must read and sign specifically acknowledging there is no expectation of privacy on these devices owned by the government.
Together with the other cases being filed with the Supreme Court from Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, Americans could be looking at the first major change to the U.S. Constitution since the 27th Amendment, which Congress passed in 1992 to address salaries for members of Congress. Blogger, Richard Morgan, was quoted as saying, “Even counting from the Twenty-Seventh, for the first time since 1913 (when Congress passed two amendments), it will soon be possible for someone to enter law school having lived his or her entire life under a static Constitution (newrepublic.com, ” This amendment was proposed as part of the Bill of Rights back when America was still a budding nation. It was written and proposed by James Madison, Jr., who has always been one of my favorite historical figures. He was one of the most influential delegates of the 50 in attendance at the 1776 Continental Congress, one of the framers (not signers) of the U.S. Constitution, co-author of the propaganda machine called the Anti-Federalist papers as part of the Democratic-Republican Party (which later developed into the modern day Democratic franchise), and 4th President of the United States (whitehouse.gov,
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.
The Fourth Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses papers, and effects..." this in the minds of the people alludes to the right of privacy. However, society misses the other half of this Amendment, which is, "...against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..." In the case of the Government having moderation over the internet, people use the Fourth Amendment on their side. Yet, the Amendment supports the side of the Government. When the Government moderates the internet, they are doing it for the safety of the nation.
The Fourth Amendment provides defense against illegal search and seizures. Essentially, one can rest assured that the police will not simply enter his house without any cause or warrant, search until they find something incriminating, and then legally use that discovery to charge the person with a crime. Instead, there are many very specific rules and regulations about how something can be discovered and even damning evidence found incorrectly is thrown out (Katsh, 2013). This is an important constitutional right as it ensures that witch-hunts that aim specifically to find something illegal are never carried out and instead the law enforcement aim is to properly catch someone who is doing something wrong.
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) The amendments were put into place to protect the rights and civil liberties of all American citizens from the federal government. However, prior to the fourteenth amendment, there was no certainty with the constitution. The constitution did not state in a clear enough way who was protected under it and exactly what rights you had as an American Citizen. The 14th amendment was in response to the just passed thirteenth amendment, which ended slavery in all of the southern states.