Apple is trying to protect the American people that own any apple product from the FBI. The FBI wants apple to unlock the phone from the San Bernardino 's but Apple is not doing it because it is against the 4th amendment. Since the FBI can’t get into it because Apple can not give permission to the FBI, also they don’t have any reason to look at the phone so Apple did not allow tat to happen. My opinion on this matter is that apple is doing the right thing, if the government was able to get a hold of all the information that a single person had on their phone, I am pretty sure people would be embarrassed because of all the personal information on their phones. If Apple gave them the right to look through their phone than the 4th amendment would be compromised and then that can start an up riot.
he fourth amendment was heavily rooted in the legal doctrine. The fourth amendment was created to limit the government 's power.
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.
Then Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that no person would have to be a witness against himself. It gives a person the right to refuse to answer any questions that the prosecutor might ask. The right was created because of the British courts that operated from 1487-1641. These courts believed that a prosecutor did not have to prove a case based on evidence, but rather harassing a defendant into a confession was enough evidence, whether the defendant was innocent or guilty. The right to be free from having to incriminate oneself was a law among nine of the colonies before it was included in the U.S. Constitution.
Case Brief - Plessy v. Ferguson Homer A. Plessy v. John H. Ferguson was a US Supreme Court case between Homer Plessy, the plaintiff, and John Ferguson, the defendant. The year this case took was place was 18961. This case almost entirely deals with the Louisiana Law passed six years prior that provided “equal but separate” railway carriages for white and colored races. The constitutionality of this law was brought into this case as Homer Plessy, who refused to sit in the colored only rail car, argued it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) The amendments were put into place to protect the rights and civil liberties of all American citizens from the federal government. However, prior to the fourteenth amendment, there was no certainty with the constitution. The constitution did not state in a clear enough way who was protected under it and exactly what rights you had as an American Citizen. The 14th amendment was in response to the just passed thirteenth amendment, which ended slavery in all of the southern states.
Based on an article written in the official website of Cornell University Law School titled “Fourth Amendment: An Overview” states that: "[t]he 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" (LII Staff). The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, shield's individuals from nonsensical pursuits and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, in any case, is not a certification against all ventures and seizures, but rather just those that are regarded outlandish under the law. This is a great example for people who blame the government for allowing parent to implant microchips in their children.
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
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.
In the Constitution of the United States entrench a requirement and action to have a profession, which ensure the protection and safety of the Nation and State, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, …, provide for the common defence” . Basically, this statement is the presumption, that part of society gain a mandate to render an essential obligation to the Nation in a specific area, in particular case this is a defence. In order to fulfill stated obligation, part of society must have the necessary knowledge and skills. Next, they have to ensure and gain public trust and autonomy in their action. Finally, set high moral standards that reflect the values of society.
In the law everyone is protected to have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” which makes it so high authority can’t search the person when or wherever they wish too. Over the years the fourth amendment has been looked at but not overly looked into. The fourth amendment in school has been tried many times over the years. School privacy has many different ways they go about it, but the most common for courts to decides it whether it was a reasonable search and seizure or an unreasonable search and seizure. “To make successful claims for protection under the Fourth Amendment for nonphysical invasion, individual must have genuine beliefs not only that they have expectations of privacy but also that these expectations are reasonable in the
The film Dear Zachary, directed by Kurt Kuenne, makes an argument in response to a very specific situation: the murder of Kuenne’s best friend Andrew Bagby and Bagby’s son Zachary, both killed by Andrew’s ex-girlfriend Shirley Turner. Kuenne argues that bail should be denied to anybody accused of a serious crime who also has custody of a child. While this argument is reasonable, it only provides a solution for very narrow circumstances. For the greater protection of society as a whole, an expanded version of Kuenne’s stance on bail laws is necessary. Bail should be denied not only to people accused of a serious crime who have custody of a child, but also to anybody suspect of a violent crime.
The first amendment of the Constitution guarantees certain rights to citizens. It guarantees the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to petition, and freedom of assembly. These five freedoms are part of what makes our country so great. The freedom of religion grants citizens to practice whatever religion they please.