What Are The Arguments Against The 4th Amendment

Imagine a person takes your phone and starts going through your photos, messages, notes, and emails. People have private information in their cell phones which they don’t want people to look at. Law enforcements today are taking phones and search them without a warrant when they are arrested. The federal government is able to know where you are located just by easily tracking your phone. 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 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 right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated… We all know the fourth amendment. It's the amendment that guarantees our safety within our homes and our personal belongings. Yet, how much do you know about the fourth amendment? The fourth amendment is full of history, controversy, and discussion, even in modern day.

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.

The Fourth Amendment requires a probable cause for arrest. Substantially, particular things are needed to legally conduct a search or seizure. This incorporates arrest, so a search, a seizure, or an arrest cannot take place without reason. Not to mention, there must be a "court order" for Apple to give the government "customer data." So, since a “court order” must be in place for Apple to give the government “customer data,” that “court order” would have to also take place for an arrest that could conceivably follow. In addition, the Patriot Act gives the FBI more capacity. If the FBI has more capacity, it could help them to be able to gather information in order for an arrest to take place; this could help to catch criminals faster, while

The patriot act has in my opion violated the 4th amendment. It has its advantages as far as terrorizim but to normal citzens this is a complete violation of our privacy. bThe late Benjermin Franklin warned us about trading our liberty for sucureity. This act has taken away a lot of our liberties it gives the government way too much power to invade our privacy. They now have unprecedented power to monitor the phone calls, e-mails, without a warrant. This is a great way to monitor terrorist but for the normal non criminal citizen it 's a violation simply because they can collet such things as religous affilations. medical conditions, close friends, romantic partners, gun owners and any additions. there is a movement in congress for a cleaner auterazation

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.

If a natural disaster strikes my area and the power is out for weeks, one of the limitations would be that the people would not feel that safe. Security wouldn't be enforced and since there is no security, there could be several possibilities of theft. Another limitation would be searches for any and everything. Both of these limitations should be practiced, so even if there is a national disaster we could be ready. The 4th amendment can be used as an explanation of how the limits

Would you like your home to be searched in the middle of the night and have all of your stuff thrown on the ground just because a police officer may think that you have been doing something illegal? Luckily your Fourth amendment right protects you from this ever happening. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protect U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. During the revolutionary war the British had imposed the writs of assistance which was a law that gave British government much more power over American Individuals. Americans were very unhappy with the writs of assistance because many would be thrown in jail without reason or a very weak one and their property would be destroyed by British officials who

I fear due to the recent rulings on the Patriot Act and NSA may allow people who utilize Apple’s newest feature may find that they may face a subpoena to open their phones and consequently have them used against them. As seen in the Salinas case refusal to do so may preemptively determine the defendant guilty for choosing to protect their privacy. As companies like Apple and Google push to make our communications more secure to cater toward their clientele. It will be interesting to see how the fifth amendment will apply in a digital age and to see what measures will be taken to protect or limit our

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.

The First Amendment states many of the freedoms a US citizen posses, banning/censorship of books however has violated this idea of freedom. Some authors dislike the idea of censorship of books, such as Ellen Hopkins. Hopkins is a successful writer who wrote a bestselling book called, Crank. She also wrote the poem Manifesto which was adopted as the official manifesto of the American Library Association banned books week back in 2009. Crank was a book that was banned and censored, which Hopkins disliked. She shared her thoughts on this dispute, “If you don 't like the content in a book, don 't read it. If you don 't want your child to read a book, take it away. But you do not have the right to decide “appropriateness” for everyone” (Hopkins

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.

The First Amendment is the most important, because of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Many people think that the fourth amendment is the most important. They think this, because it is important for a person to be able to tell policemen “No” if they ask you if they could search your car or your house. I believe that the fourth amendment is really important, but you wouldn’t be able to tell the policemen “No” if you didn’t have freedom of speech.George Washington said,”If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be, like sheep to the slaughter” (“Famous Quotes Freedom of Speech”).Without freedom of speech and religion we are nothing.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms. When the Second Amendment was written it was for the right to arm oneself as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, gun advocates proclaim that guns are for the right to self-defense. Some people try to participate and uphold the law. We have seen how guns in the hands of children can cause fatal accidents and people have committed mindless crimes leading to