They find child pornography images among his digital photos. Paul is charged under California 's child pornography laws. In June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court clarifies the law on cell phone searches making it clear that the warrantless search of Paul 's phone is now illegal. But because the police who searched Paul 's phone were acting in good faith, in accordance with California law as it was at the time the images can still be admitted as evidence against Paul. I think that California laws on search and seize on electronic devices are fair.
Wesby was a very interesting case, that was just recently decided. I agree with the judges that for one there was no lawful arrest made and but I strongly disagree that there was not probable cause to make an arrest and lastly, I agree that the officers do have qualified immunity in this case. The officers made an unlawful arrest because they lacked evidence to charge the party goers with unlawful arrest. This is because the party goers did not know they were not supposed to be there at that time. The Court case states that Peaches was the supposed tenant of the house and gave the party goers permission to be there and that is why they were all there.
Arnie and the officer entered into the suspects home without a warrant or probable cause and they then proceeded to search his house illegal and used the evidence in the house to question him without using informing him of his rights. 2. What would have been the proper investigative steps to take? The right investigative steps would be to watch the man and when they had probable cause or enough evidence for a warrant then they could take action. They could ask to come in and if he lets them in and they find something in plain view then they can use that to arrest him.
The exclusionary rule is a deterrent against searches and seizures. Any evidence that is gained through an illegal search or seizure is now inadmissible in criminal proceedings, per the exclusionary rule. Supporters of the exclusionary rule argue that it helps prevent illegal searches and seizures against law enforcement. Those against the exclusionary rule argue that the exclusionary rule keeps criminals out of jail and there are other preventative measures such as suspending police officers without pay, dismissing them from a case, or in extreme circumstances terminating employment of officers who violate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects all citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures from all government officials.
In the case of Floyd v New York City when David Floyd an African American man was unfairly frisked and accused by the police for breaking and entering in to his own family building. 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
Just 45 days after 9/11 the Patriot Act was hastily passed. The act is in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment that protects against unlawful search and seizure; it allows our government to spy on American citizen’s technology use without a warrant. The act was intended to protect against terrorism, but between 2003 and 2005 there were 143,074 National Security Letters that allowed the FBI to search through personal information without a warrant resulting in 53 criminal referrals, of which zero were terrorist threats (ACLU). I do believe in monitoring for terrorist threats , but we can’t let fear control our decisions. Our right to privacy is fundamental, and without reasonable cause no one should be monitored by the
It seems like instead of asking Apple to make such a serious modification to the software a single FBI agent could have sat there and tried all possible combination. It is important to note that Apple hasn’t said that they can’t create this backdoor only that they wont. The reason being in a metaphor Apple CEO once used, “if you put a key under the front mat for the government, there’s nothing to stop burglars from finding the key as well.” Which means they are assuming that once the backdoor exists, it is only a matter of time before it is exploited by hackers and perhaps, more importantly, other Governments. Because if Apple provides the U.S Government with this backdoor in the name of national security now it exists and what’s to say that China can not come to Apple and say, “Hey! We want that backdoor too, also for our national security, but if you do not give it to us, we are not going to let you sell your iPhone’s to our one
For example, say that someone in North Korea was to speak negatively about the North Korean government. The government would have no trouble or any setbacks in searching through the persons house without a warrant. Compared to this, the authorities of the United States require for warrants to search through a suspect’s house and only if the reason for doing this is logical. Amendments five and six serve for those that are convicted of crimes. People cannot be convicted for the same crime twice and must be treated to an equal trial.
The exclusionary rule was made to protect people 's rights and ensure justice in court but there are exceptions. One exception to the exclusionary rule is inevitable discovery. The law of inevitable discovery states that even if evidence is obtained illegally, it can still be used against someone in court if the evidence was bound to be found one way or another. For example, if the police were searching for a fugitive and broke into someone 's house without a search warrant because they believed the criminal was inside the house, and find the criminal they can still arrest him because sooner or later they would of gotten a warrant to go inside the house they suspected him to be in. If the police have to go inside someone 's home to find an
The FBI seems to be making strides in preventing terrorist attacks, but this action should be made without social profiling and trolling the internet. Also, the repeal of Net Neutrality is another right being stripped from Americans. We deserve the right to an accessible internet that does not economically discriminate. All in all, the government does not have the right to monitor or limit internet content, as it skews our checks and balances system. Without these checks and balances we evolve into a country that oppresses its citizens.