This case brought the fourth amendment into a modern era. Federal agents suppected a amn name Charles Katz of bookmaking, placed a listening device againist a publoc phone booth that Katez used. "The Government 's activied is electronically listening to and recording words violated the privacy upon which KAtz justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a search and seizure whithin the meaning of the fourth amendment") the court concluded with help of an unanimous votes that the police violate the fourth amendment. In conclusion, the fourth amendement came a far way with the wording. The fouth amendment is another example of the law can be
The other case was Texas v. Johnson. Gregory Johnson burned an American flag in protest. The law in Texas at the time banned flag burnings. He was convicted, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. We ruled that Johnson’s right to free speech had been violated.
United States v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones should have had the same outcome from the Supreme Court. Both, former President 's violated the law and wanted to use presidential privileges to dismiss their cases. In the United States v. Nixon, the Court had the right to order the President to relinquish the tapes to Congress to use as evidence for the trial against the seven members held accountable. Those accused were owed a duty by the Court to be given a fair and speedy trial. In the Clinton v. Jones case, the Court should have not granted the former President Clinton immunity because the general public needs to realize that not even the President can violate the law and get away with it.
The Supreme Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio was very controversial. It changed how handle evidence and forced police officers to take special precautions when obtaining evidence. In the case of Mapp, Mapp 's attorneys argued that the obscene material found in Mapp’s house had been unlawfully seized and should not be allowed as evidence. Prior to Mapp’s trial the Supreme Court had ruled in Weeks vs the United States that illegally obtained evidence was not permissible in Federal Court. But did this same principle apply to states?
The stolen valor act is about lying about having military medals and the supreme made it illegal in 2012. People were claiming that they were in the military to get money and properties. I think it is a really good thing that there is a law in place for this. John Abel was charged with robbing a bank with two other men. In order to distract Respondents witness the prosecution offered testimony that he and the witness were part of a prison gang that promoted perjury on the of fellow gang members..
Riley v. California in 2014 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court argued whether the police has the right to search and seize digital content without a warrant, from individuals who have been arrested. So, the main question of the case was whether the evidence admitted at trial from Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment right. The court ruled, by a unanimous vote that a warrantless cell phone search during an arrest is unconstitutional. On August 22, 2009, the police stopped David Leon Riley for driving with an expired registration tag. Then, the officer proceeded to impound Riley’s car because he was driving with a suspended license.
Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of obscene pictures in Mapp 's basement. Mapp was arrested for possessing the pictures, and was convicted in an Ohio court where she lost the case in fighting her for first amendment rights. Then, Mapp argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search of the officers and got her case taken to the U.S. Supreme Court where she won. At the time of the case, unlawfully seized evidence was banned from federal courts but not state courts, meaning that the evidence found in Mapp’s home was used against her in the Ohio court, but not the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mark stole the principal’s car to go see his parole officer about stealing cars, proving that he doesn’t care about the concept of wrong and right because he kept doing the same thing over and over (Hinton 73). Finally, Bryon was right for turning Mark in because Mark was putting the whole household at risk. Mark had his drugs under his mattress in Bryon and his house (Hinton 145). This put everyone in the house at risk because someone could break in to get Mark’s drugs or money as people start to recognize what kind of business he is doing. Some people may argue that Bryon’s decision was wrong because he and Mark were best friends.
In the course of Charles Shenck, the Supreme Court refused to admit that the government had violated the first amendment rights by saying the first amendment didn 't protect speech that encouraged insubordination. The truth was, the Congress had violated hugely on citizens ' freedom of speech and freedom of press. The Government also tried to force people support the War by creating mass amounts of propagandas. When the first red scare flamed out during the World War I, agents would illegally entered and searched people 's houses. Innocent Americans were arrested and jailed.
Amendment IV is still used in modern times. Most often, Amendment IV comes into play during criminal trials, because in the 1950s, Supreme Court ruled that any evidence obtained an an unlawful search are ineligible to appear in court. However, this is very controversial because the illegal evidence might prove that the criminal is guilty, but the defendant will escape without punishment since it cannot be used. In addition, Amendment IV, in modern years, has been challenged and discussed often because of many contentious search and seizure incidents involving government or police. Recently, the government has been gathering information on American citizens’ Internet and telephone use in an effort to intercept terrorist activity online and over
People against the Patriot Act believed it violated the citizen 's right to the Fourth Amendment; while others made a highly controversial point with the allowance for the FBI to make a procedure of any tangible things, including: books, records, papers, documents, and other items for an investigation against international terrorism (EPIC - USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162). (n.d.). With access to tangible objects such as books and records, libraries felt the Patriot Act targeted them. Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act allows the government to secretly obtain library records without any reason to believe a person of suspicion are involved in any illegal activity.
Justice Tom Clark also said, if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law (FindLaw, 2017). Also, the court reasoned that if a "criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than failure to observe its own laws, or worse, disregard the charter of its own existence (Bill of Rights Institute,
The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure or information derived from the evidence from an illegal search and seizure will be inadmissible in court. Wolf v Colorado being overturned is an example of this. Police obtained Wolf’s appointment book with the information as to who Wolf’s patients were. The book is evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The police then interrogated some of Wolf’s clients.
They decided that asking for the recounts violated the rights of the citizens of Florida (phschool.com, 1). Florida Supreme Court ruled that the recount order was unconstitutional mainly because of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This clause granted protection to ballots and the citizens casting them. It forbids government from denying "to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. The court argued that privately voting in a presidential election is a fundamental right guarded by this clause.
Immigration Under Siege After researching my topic, I found that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is using procedures enacted by congress as a means to treat immigrant workers as criminals while conducting worksite raids. This is a bad idea because they are waging a war against immigrant communities in the process. This agency created by the Government, raids worksites and community schools and sets-up traffic checkpoints to demand legal documentation of citizenship. In light of the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the INS was abolished by statute and all immigration services, enforcement, and related policymaking including visa policies were transferred to a new Department of Homeland Security. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of that department is in charge of a range of activities on the interior of the United States including investigating, arresting, detaining and deporting illegal non-citizens