Process Essay: Violation Of The Fourth Amendment

Have you ever had the suspicious feeling that someone was watching you? More often than not, it is just your mind playing tricks on you. With the introduction of so many new smart-technology products, it might not just be your mind playing tricks on you. These advancements in technology allowing for smart phones, smart TVs, smart watches, smart speakers, and even smart toilets have come at a great cost: our right to privacy in our own homes. Most of us purchase these products because they are the popular trend at the time. Have you ever considered that the very devices that we willingly purchase because they are “must-have” may be listening to us and storing information about us without our knowledge? This scary thought becomes even more concerning

The fourth amendment is written to limit the power the government to go in our privacy. The amendment was written in 1791, smartphones were not invented until 1992. A smartphone is part of a person’s property and the amendment says that the government cannot search a person’s property without a warrant. In other hands on a police officer point of view they should be able to search through phone with or without warrants because they have important information for a crime or a

To begin, we need to understand the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment was created to prevent the government from breaching into our homes and convicting us of crimes based on evidence they discover within our homes. It was vital to state unreasonable searches in the constitution, and an unreasonable search is a search done without

The Fourth Amendment was formally sanctioned in 1791 as a direct response to the Writs of Assistance. These were search warrants issued by courts to assist the British government in enforcing trade and navigation laws. The warrants authorized officers to search any house for smuggled goods without specifying either the house or the goods. The Fourth Amendment was proposed to stop this and 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.” In laymen terms, this amendment prevented officers to search people’s property without their consent, or the approval of a judge.

The writ questioned “Whether or under what circumstances the Fourth Amendment permits police officers to conduct a warrantless search of the digital contents of an individual’s cell phone seized from the person at the time of arrest”, SCOTUSblog.com; and it was granted on January 17, 2014 in part because Federal and State Courts had openly divided opinions over this issue. Riley v. California was argued on April 29, 2014 and a decision was made on June 25, 2014. The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. declared by a unanimous decision that a warrantless cell phone search violates the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. The court stated that the warrantless search exception (SITA) does not apply to this case because digital data store in an electronic device cannot be used as a weapon to harm officers. Although, the court recognizes that possible evidence stored on a cell phone may be wiped remotely, it also acknowledges that it could be avoided by disconnecting the cell phone from the network and placing it in a Faraday bag.

The fourth amendment secures the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures, if there are no probable cause or certain issue, then it cannot be touched. In addition, if evidence is found that an illegal search has happened,

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Consitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The common misconception is that it simply covers what it states. In the age of development and new technology, it is likely that what we consider secrets or personal information is not as secret or personal as we once believed. Important pieces of evidence or information have often been found through illegal means, and this has led to many cases that change the way the constitution and the Fourth Amendment affect

The Fourth Amendment is “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.” In other words, it is against the law for police to search any person without probable cause and an issued warrant. (Cartoon Surveillance) This protects the privacy of the innocent people that may not be considered guilty. However, giving the people a right to a warrant is only giving them an advantage, while the police and the government have a disadvantage.

The Fourth Amendment protects all citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment states any form of stalking, any form of eavesdropping, any form of searching and seizing are a violation of the 4th Amendment. This protects everyone of the United States(Oyez). Searching or seizing anything from someone in a private area without a

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.

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

Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the

In the case, the Court did not see sufficient evidence to support the claim that the police violated the respondent’s Fourth Amendment right, prior to entering the resident. There is no evidence of threats or demands made by the police officers, that would insinuate the officer did anything wrong. Because the police in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency, the Court held that the exigency did in fact justify the warrantless search. The officers re-acted upon suspicion and training (Vile, n.d.).

With this question, privacy v. safety concerns came up. With this concern, The Petitioner, Riley and his lawyers, argued that smart phones simply contain too much personal information to be legally searched by police without a warrant. Many argues that smart phones reveal the most private thoughts of the average American, containing extensive records of the book read, websites visited, and conversations with friends and family of the owner. They also argue that constitutional protections will be surrendered if police can search the smart phone of every American arrested without a warrant. The Petitioner further contend that smart phones are every bit as sophisticated as personal computers and need to be treated as such and can be through of as a window into the owner’s mind.

This completely takes away a person’s right to privacy. The government has access search anyone’s internet or library records. Taking away someone’s right to read what they please also takes away the freedom of writing about controversial topics since anyone who reads it is intimidated by the government (Jacobs and