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
The first case that caused the Supreme Court to allow officers to authorize a search and seizure, was the Terry vs. Ohio case in 1968. The case ruled whether or not it violated the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection from an unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court then determined that the practice of stopping and frisking a suspect in public does not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the officer has a “reasonable suspicion”. Suspicions such as a person that may seem like they’re planning a crime, have committed a crime, or that may be armed and appear as dangerous. The reason why this policy escalated was due to an incident that happened On October 31, 1963 in Cleveland, Ohio.
A different federal judge ruled that if the DEA wishes to use a stingray to bring in a criminal then they must have a warrant to use it [source]. The argument that a lot of people will make when it comes to surveillance is that if you’ve done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide. If we apply that same logic to this specific case, then we might as well say that the government should be able to put a unique tracking device on each one of us that we must always carry around. Many people would probably no want to be constantly tracked by the government openly, so why should we be okay with tracking us whenever they want, just without announcing it? We are afforded legal protections for most other private areas in our lives so why should we have almost no rights when it comes to something that we depend on and use every day?
The fourth amendment protects citizens from unlawful search and seizure. In order for a search and seizure to happen the police have to have evidence in order to get a warrant which allows them to search the citizens luggage, house, etc. In some cases the government may go to far, or invade privacy of others, but in this case the government didn’t go to far and this is proven in DLKs case, thermal imager, and heat image. In DLKs case he was taking reasonable expectation of privacy in the activities he was doing in his home.
The Court held that the roadblocks did not violate the Fourth Amendment which covers the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures also known as protecting our right to privacy. The Court said, "no one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States ' interest in eradicating it... the weight bearing on the other scale--the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints--is slight". This case has shown that an inconvenience to a motorist 's privacy is acceptable when we are dealing with the larger purpose of saving lives.
Your rights might not be protected as you think. Specifically, the 4th Amendment has been failing its promises to the country and its citizens. The 4th Amendment protects citizens from illegal searches, but is frequently violated by the police, FBI, CIA, etc. It’s hard to imagine law enforcers to break the law, but it is very possible and has ruined the lives of two people.
Technology has advanced over the past decade, providing law enforcement officials with new ways of gathering criminal evidence. However, these tools have raised some constitutional questions. An individual from Oregon with the initials DLK was involved in a case which had people wondering if agents violated his fourth amendment rights. Federal agents suspected that DLK was growing marijuana inside of his home, which drove agents to scan his house using a thermal scanner which showed heat just like the kind that is generated by using special lights in growing marijuana. A judge then issued agents a search warrant to check the home where they found 100 marijuana plants.
The court ruled in favor of Floyd saying that Frisking policy violated the fourth amendment because it over bares and violates personal space Yes GPS surveillance on a suspects vehicle without suspects knowledge should always require a warrant as long as the suspect is not suspected for murder. A suspect shouldn’t have his or her private property searched because the
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.
This is what happened with Antoine Jones in the Supreme Court Case of The United States v. Antoine Jones. Jones was arrested for drug possession when police attached a tracker to his jeep without judicial approval and followed him for a month. Jones argued his conviction because it violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court’s ruling was delivered by Justice Scalia, and with a 5-4 split they decided this: "the Government 's installation of a GPS device on a target 's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle 's movements, constitutes a 'search '" under the Fourth Amendment” (Scalia 5). This court case ties directly to the Patriot Act.
With the current presidential elections, one thing seems to be quoted over and over; The Bill of Rights. A list written by the Founding Fathers containing the 10 most important laws. Great importance is still being put on the Bill of Rights in today’s world, even though it was written over 200 years ago. Our country itself was built off these laws. Without a doubt, out of the 10 original amendments, one has stuck out to be especially essential.
The fourth amendment prohibits, "unreasonable searches and seizures", and protects citizens' privacy within reasonable measures. Now, how does this tie into modern technology, and should the use of this information be considered a violation of people's constitutional right to privacy? Police should not be able to obtain information stored by personal devices or their carriers, as the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees privacy to the United States citizens. In that case that the authorities were to use information from a person's personal device without a proper warrant, they would be in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.
With civil liberties certain amendments grant citizens certain rights also referred to as the Bill of Rights. 2 GPS surveillance on a vehicle without their knowledge, a search warrant is required. An article by Andy Hagerman states, “. the attachment of the GPS device to the undercarriage of Jones’
The recordings and recording of the information has been brought up as invasion of privacy for the individuals in the videos and that it might violate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects people and their homes from unlawful searches and seizures from police without a warrant or probable cause. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that law enforcement officers may record what they see or hear without violating the Amendment in Lopez v U.S. in 1963
Cell phones are so prominent in society that many police departments want to browse through these devices when doing a standard search procedure. This goes against the 4th amendment of
