Individual Project Rebbecca Reid Colorado Technical University Individual Project “You are a police officer assigned to a task force that is investigating major drug trafficking operations in your jurisdiction. As part of the investigative process, a judge has issued a wiretap order for a suspect’s phone. You are assigned the responsibility of monitoring phone conversations, and you overhear the suspect as well as other individuals who may or may not be involved in the drug ring. Before obtaining enough evidence to arrest and prosecute the suspect, you hear evidence related to other types of criminal activity.” Fourth Amendment and Wiretapping According to the Fourth Amendment a person has an expectation to privacy from …show more content…
If the warrant says states that more evidence can be found from the wiretap then the evidence of other criminal activities can be used against the offender. Section 2518(5) of Title III says that “The government must minimize listening to conversations that do not implicate the predicate acts”, (Howard J. Kaplan, 2012). Title III also states that the government must minimize the interception of private phone calls, it also permits an application for a wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping order only for crimes specifically designated by the statute. The wiretapping can only be used for the crimes that are outlined in the warrant, (Maclin, 2002). The constitutional issues inside of this wiretap is recording personal conversations and hearing about other crimes. This comes down to a Fourth Amendment and Title III provisions and how they relate to this case. The offender is within his right to expect privacy on his phone calls. If the detectives use this other information they obtained while using the wiretapping warrant for the other crimes the offender could say that they Government overstepped the bounds of the …show more content…
Anything relating to the drug trafficking the detectives can certainly use. However anything relating to other crimes the detectives cannot bring to court because they did not have a warrant to use that information. The wiretapping warrants can only be used to gain certain information, the detectives cannot use everything they hear over the wiretap. “A third person may be adversely affected or incriminated by unlawfully seized communications and yet have no standing to object, even though the chapter plainly states that no such communication will be admissible”, (Scholorship.law.duke,
The Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination Clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware to his rights and the suspect had then waived them
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, 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 searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
When officer Faultless seized the phones of Rahten and Ruhmoan both were secured then secured by officer faultless. Officer faultless unable to unlock the phones noticing Ruhmoan’s phone required his thumb print to open and forcefully used his thumb to unlock his phone. Once unlocked the officer noticed information from a text about a gun being in their car. This lead to the officer searching the car and discovering a gun. The gun was located in the passenger’s driver’s seat well out of the view of both
For example, in his article “Fighting Police Corruption”, Krauss states, “The 911 call could hardly have been more routine. A man wearing a denim jacket and fatigue pants was reported to be selling drugs outside a housing project in southern Brooklyn. Two plainclothes officers responded to the call on a mild night last month, frisked the man and found $400 under the seat of his bicycle. But finding no drugs, the police let him go. The officers were unaware that they had just taken "a walk on the dark side": police talk for an Internal Affairs Bureau sting. The "drug dealer" was actually an undercover officer wired for sound, and the interchange was videotaped from a van parked a block away to see if the officers would rough up the supposed dealer or steal his money. These officers did neither”. Sting operations like this one are a central part of the Police Department 's efforts to overcome the damaging corruption scandals that engulfed the 75Th Precinct in NY between 1986 and
The 4th amendment protects people from being searched or having their belongings taken away without any good reason. The 4th amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. For many years prior to the ratifiation, people were smuggling goods because of the Stamp Act; in response Great Britain passed the writs of assistance so British guards could search someone’s house when they don’t have a good reason to. This amendment gave people the right to privacy. “Our answer to the question of what policy must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant.” This was addressed to officers searching people’s houses and taking things without having a proper reason. I find
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
The Constitution of the United States of America protects people’s rights because it limits the power of government against its people. Those rights guaranteed in the Constitution are better known as the Bill of Rights. Within these rights, the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures […]” (Knetzger & Muraski, 2008). According to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be issued before a search and seizure takes place. However, consent for lawful search is one of the most common exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
Well written procedures, rules, and regulation provide the cornerstone for effectively implementing policies within the criminal justice system. During the investigational process, evidence collected is subjected to policies such as Search and Seizure, yet, scrutinized by the Exclusionary Rule prior to the judicial proceeding. Concurrent with criminal justice theories, evidence collected must be constitutionally protected, obtained in a legal and authorized nature, and without violations of Due Process. Although crime and criminal activities occur, applicability of policies is to ensure accountability for deviant behaviors and to correct potentially escalation within social communities It is essential the government address such deviant behavior, however, equally important is the protection of the accused which also must become a priority when investigating criminal cases.
A short background on the laws concerning surveillance will help clear up some misconceptions on the NSA. Back in 1968, the Wiretap Act protected citizens from the government listening to their phone call...
The Fourth Amendment provides people with the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Courts have long recognized that the Forth Amendment protected individuals from unjustified police intrusions into one’s person, home, car, or other possessions, but few practical protection mechanisms existed. To preserve these constitutional guarantees, the Supreme Court established standards by which police officers must abide. One such protection has been the probable cause — a belief that the person committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. In order to uphold an arrest or seizure, courts have required a probable cause combined with either a warrant or circumstances
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.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments
“They may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism, if these folks — if the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call, they’ve got to go back to a federal judge, just like they would in a criminal investigation.”(Obama’s remarks) President Obama said this in an interview regarding the NSA’s work on surveillance to protect the country while also following the Fourth amendment’s Guidelines. The fourth amendment can be beneficial to the government by allowing them to legally conduct search and seizures. The Fourth Amendment also allows law enforcement to access suspect’s phones and any electronic devices. It also allows law enforcement to access all suspects’ files. Even though, The Fourth Amendment can help Law Enforcement it can also invade privacy. Although some believe the Fourth Amendment promotes invasion of privacy, it is beneficial to the government because it helps protect citizens from illegal search and seizures, allows the IRS to access foreigners, and in some cases American’s emails/phones, and helps law enforcement access suspects’ files.
...ate the exclusionary rule all in the name of anti-terroism. However the exclusionary rule’s power was pristinely intended to be used only in federal cases but its was later extended to the state level by the landmark case Mapp vs. Ohio in 1961.This precedent means that all evidence seized, whether by state officials under incipient anti-terrorist state laws, or by federal agencies under the USA PATRIOT Act, is subject to the Fourth Amendment and its exclusionary rule.The Supreme Court has additionally been required to apply the principles of the Fourth Amendment to new technologies which were not yet discovered in 1791.Notwithstanding the last 200 years of case precedent which greatly expanded the analysis of the Fourth Amendment, the NSA wiretapping (under which the Patriot Act allows) greatly expands the authority of the NSA and encroaches on those precedents.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was enacted in 1986 to revise federal wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping provisions. It promotes the legitimate needs for law enforcement and most significantly, the privacy expectations of citizens. ECPA created the Stored Communications Act( SAC), which has created controversy in criminal cases where electronic communications have been present. Usually, in a case where electronic communications happened, one of the court's main task is to determine whether the crime violated the ECPA or the SCA. The case I will present next is a sample of the holding of a judge in a case where both of the acts became contradiction towards the final decision of the case.
On follow up, investigators will determine what an officer has done in the case based on the information that has been presented in the report. These investigators will then have to decide what they will need to do next in order to continue the investigation and successfully bring it to a close. When it comes to court it will be up to the prosecutor to understand the full scope of the event simply by reading the police reports. They will then have to determine whether all of the elements of the crime have been presented in order to sustain the proper charge and ultimately prove the case. In addition to the prosecutor, Judges, other attorneys and juries will have to rely on information recorded in police reports to make a decisions about the guilt or innocence of the parties involved in the reported event. If the report is inaccurate, misleading or untruthful there could be damaging repercussions. An officer's integrity and credibility could be at