What Are The Arguments Against The 4th Amendment

Different states have different rules of this amendment. Right to bear arms is to protect themselves from violent assaults. Unfortunately it can be more dangerous for members of a household than for potential criminals. The Third amendment states “As an american we have the right to protect our privacy and home. This amendment protects our home privacy, that no soldiers could come to your house without permission.

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. Issuing warrants take away time and privilege for police. Needing a warrant may unable police to some investigations as well.

The side of this debate that supports less strict criteria for warrantless search of the digital information of cell phones is law enforcement, which is made up of various entities that track American citizen’s data to keep the country safe. Government lawyers and supports of warrantless cell phone searches argue that “searching a cell phone is no different than search other items commonly found on a person at the time of arrest.” In addition, they point out that prohibiting these searches would hurt prosecutors’ chances of proving guilt in drug trafficking cases because of the widespread use of cell phones by drug dealers in order to move their products. At surface level it seems that the Court has just required police to get warrants before checking cell phones, but the ruling could lead to questions about the NSA’s capacity to conduct warrantless search on American’s data. Government institutions, primarily the NSA, have used “section 215 of the Patriot Act” to analyze American’s phone data, but this ruling could show that the Court is attempting to better protect the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens by stopping

If the world I lived in had no freedom to think it would be a freighting place. How would I be any different than a robot? The only things I would be allowed to do are the objectives the government assigns me to do. The NSA has disclosed their information on tapping phones to look for any sign of threat that can harm the public. Who is to say that the government will not use this to find those who have any rebellious thoughts against the government.

The 4th Amendment, which is considered one of the most important in detailing the privacy we are given, states that we as persons are given freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. This amendment also says that no warrants can be issued without probable cause. Generally speaking, this created that no one can be searched unless a warrant is issued, although with someone who is in pursuit of crime, a warrant will be unnecessary. This amendment was also able to create the idea that phones cannot be tapped in with unless a warrant was written, this includes any and all phones, even public phones. The 5th amendment gives us protection against self-incrimination which allows us to have privacy of personal information.

Another problem with taking guns away, or banning them, is that the government cannot expect everyone to abide by the laws. In past circumstances when guns were banned, criminals were the kind of people that the government wanted to make sure did not have guns. In reality, they were always the ones who still had the guns (Lott). People can say that gun crime is a serious firearm problem, but guns are not always the exact cause of the crime. Even if the government tries to deny groups access to guns, they could still find their way around the law and gain access to one

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.

The next reason is the Apple and FBI disputes. Disputes go on due to the terror attack by the FBI forcing apple to unlock phones. The FBI is going to far when doing this, Apple makes phones secure and safe. The FBI should not be able to unlock somebody's Iphone this may cause problems just like it did in the terror attack killing 14 people. Last and final reason is the US vs Jones.

The expectations of the wall will never fit such a tiny man 's ego. Building the wall is not going to do anything other than put the U.S. in debt, and force Mexico to provide finance into building Trump 's wall. This wall should not be built, and the debate on building it is an unrealistic argument. Donald Trump thinks building this wall is the big solution to keeping all illegal immigrants out of the United States. But he does not mention the ones already here.

I think that California laws on search and seize on electronic devices are fair. No police can search without a warrant with the exemption of the metions above. I always think that if it looks suspicios it should a cause to search and seize, I know that might make people powerless but I bet more people will be behind bars if police can make search without