Violating The Fourth Amendment

Mission Overlaps within the Department of Homeland Security In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is primarily responsible for ensuring the safety of the general public. Aside from that, this department seeks to protect the U.S. from terrorists, and it ensures that the immigration and customs is properly managed, and that disaster is efficiently prevented, as the case may be. However, some have called for the shutting down of the DHS because mission areas overlap within this department. In line with this assertion, this paper will identify the possible mission areas or responsibilities that overlap within the DHS and at the same time, this paper will also provide recommendations for possible consolidation. The

Unreasonable search and seizure is an asset in this country. It is an asset in this country because the police have to have rules also. If America did away with the fourth Amendment there would not be any crime because the police will be able to arrest anyone without probable cause. The police would have such much power that people will be afraid to even drive through a stop sign.

I can see the pros and cons of this device. It would be helpful in catching people that are texting and driving however, it is a violation of privacy. The fourth amendment sates that we are free from unreasonable search and seizure however, if you suspect someone is texting that is probable cause. If someone had probable cause that someone was texting then I do not think, it would be unreasonable to run a check. I think this tool could become a great way to prevent drivers from texting.

First to protect that person from financial, emotional and social repercussions. Second is to prevent the government from using the resources to convict innocent people. Double Jeopardy only protects individuals when they are being prosecuted for the same crime. In the Fifth Amendment it explains that double jeopardy is, “No person shall, be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Double jeopardy has been

The use of a body camera is very important in many different instances such as recording a crime, making a statement about an event that just occurred, or as evidence against suspects. By publishing the recorded video to the public, it could potentially violate personal privacy; keeping it private raises concerns about the deceitfulness of the police ("Police Cameras"). This is why body cameras are extremely controversial in our society. Even though body cameras can potentially seem like an invasion of privacy to the public, they can help with clarifying evidence and showing the humane side of the police force. Body cameras are a vital piece of equipment for law enforcement and play an essential

I still don’t agree to this because with the 4th amendment we have the right to privacy from the government, and that means all personal property can not get searched without the presence of a warrant. Also I love having my freedom with my phone and knowing that the government can check on anyone whenever they feel like you are a little weird so they check your personal

The Fourth Amendment 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" (Administrative Office, n.d.) The key to this is unreasonable searches and seizures. I am using a government-owned device and if my employer believes I have something to hide that could be hurtful or harmful, he should be allowed to search my device without waiting for a warrant. The only time it would be infringing on my rights protected by the Fourth Amendment is if he is being unreasonable and only checking whenever he felt like being nosey. As it is a government given device, it 's not mine in the first place and I should be aware of that. Computers and phones given by the government have their own stipulations to that and searching them is one.

There are people who think it’s a great idea because police and catch criminals easier. In the other hand people think it is invading our privacy. The ACLU believes that the government is invading our privacy and they should not be able to search our phone without a warrant and should not know the location we visit or currently at. The can also get you contacts,

The second amendment has been under the microscope for quite some time know. Determining the meaning, gun control supporters misinterpret the amendment and believe that the amendment should protect the states right to bear their own military. However, the correct interpretation is the right of an individual to bear arms. Gun control supporters are trying to take this freedom away, because there scared of gun. Guns aren’t dangerous, people are dangerous.

Personal records given to the NSA or government without a probable cause or reasoning for a search warrant repels everything the Fourth Amendment represents. As said by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis “Now the right to life has come to the right to be let alone” with the government and other associations receiving the right to track records at any moment takes away from the feeling of security the Fourth Amendment is supposed to give citizens. The confidentiality of individual’s personal belongings, feeling of security, and freedom from governmental obstruction is what makes the Fourth Amendment important to society, although search-warrants can be issued with causes that seem reasonable.

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.

"In time of war, the lot is silent " Cicero. The U.S government should have the right to violate citizens ' civil liberties in the name of national security, but only when necessary. Civil liberties are fundamental individual rights and freedoms which are protected by law against governmental interference. Some example of civil liberties are the 1st amendment and the right to privacy. National security is protecting and countries territory and people from invasion and other threats.

The National Security Agency (NSA) is an intelligence organization that is part of the United States Government. Their responsibility is to protect citizens from foreign and internal dangers. This is done through surveillance cameras, phone tracking, and computer programs so, where exactly is the line drawn from being safe to invasive? Although, surveillance may now just be a social expectation among the world. The United States has been known for spying on its allies just as other countries have been known for spying on the United States and their own country 's allies.

As you listen and watch, one has learned that the national security grounds the government started to illegally spying on citizens’ transaction and communication. I must say, that this brought reason for concern; because the Patriot Act bars such behavior. To add injury the government had no justification why their new surveillance method was not covered by the U.S. Patriot Act. However, I understand that the country is at high terrorist risk, but it is unjustifiably and unnecessary for the American government to infringe on our

Today the NSA (National Security Agency) has a striking resemblance to Big Brother as both justify spying with “security” and the “benefit” of the people. As the presence of the NSA spying on citizens becomes more common the possibility of this future draws closer and more realistic. The public’s safety should always be a constant to strive for, but stealing the rights, freedom, and privacy of people should not be a sacrifices made to ensure this. To prevent a travesty, such as