In the twenty-first century, the United States of America has been attacked many times by enemies from outside countries. Surprisingly, most of these attacks have not happened on the ground, but in the sky. Many terrorists will buy tickets on a large passenger jet with a travel route in the United States and will either Hi-jack the air craft and blow it up later, or ignite it in the air, killing all the people on board the plane and the people effected on the ground. Perhaps the most famous terrorist attack in American history is the attack by Al-Queda on September 11, 2001. Natalie Smith of Scholastic News summarizes the story of this event perfectly. “On September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked the Unites States. They hijacked four airplanes in mid-flight. The terrorists flew two of the planes into two skyscrapers at the World Trade Center in New York City. The impact caused the buildings to catch fire and collapse. Another plane destroyed part of the Pentagon (the U.S. military headquarters) in Arlington, Virginia. The fourth plane crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Officials believe that the terrorists on that plane intended to destroy either the White House or the U.S. Capitol. Passengers on the plane fought the terrorists and prevented them from reaching their goal. In all, nearly 3,000 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks.” (Smith 1) After this attack, airports across from America installed metal detectors to ensure this would not happen again. Little did they know that about eight years later, the United States would be attacked again. On Christmas day of 2009, a man from a Nigeria boarded a plane headed toward Detroit with explosives mended in his undergarments. The man later ignited ... ... middle of paper ... ...st., Amend. IV). The only way a person can be searched is if the police, or the person searching, has a warrant. However, the warrants are very specific on what they can search, how they can search, and where they can search. In airports today, a copious amount of searches are taking place; even though they do not have premission to search. This violates the fourth amendment of the Constitution. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, in 2010, nearly four hundered complaints came in from travelers Stellin 1) Criminal defense lawyer, John Wesley Hall, told Susan Stellin of the New York Times that, “For Fourth Amendment purposes, you cannot touch somebody like this unless you are checking them into a jail or youve got resonable suspicion that they have got a gun... Here there is no reasonable suspicion... It is a pure act of getting on a plane.”(1) insert
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
Gant was arrested by Arizona police because he was driving a vehicle with a suspended license. While he was being handcuffed, officers searched his vehicle and found a gun and a bag of cocaine. During the trial, Gant petitioned to suppress the gun and cocaine because the police didn’t serve a warrant to search his vehicle, in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Prior to the Supreme Courts opinion on this case, Arizona vs. Gant, it was standard practice for police to conduct a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of a vehicle. The justifications for the search incident to arrest are to allow police to secure any weapons that the arrestee might seek to use to resist arrest or escape and preserve evidence. This case is a decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to a continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured. ...
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2011 prompted the world to reevaluate and drastically modify airport and airline security. “Four targets had been chosen, all iconic American buildings that would send a clear message of the depth of their hatred for the United States. All four planes crashed, killing all on board—terrorists, crew members, and passengers, along with hundreds who were killed inside the structures, on the ground, and the men and women who ran into collapsing buildings in an effort to try and save others” (Smutz 1). As Jason Villemez said “the decade after the 9/11 attacks reshaped many facets of life in America” (Villemez 1). Before the attacks, people did not think that large scale hostility towards innocent people in our country was remotely possible. Ever since that fateful moment, citizens in America are on their toes every day worrying about another attack happening. United States citizens have had to adapt and change in response to this fear of further terrorist assault on our country. One of the ways they have adapted is by changing their means of security concerning airline travel.
The Fourth (IV) Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses paper, 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 Constitution, Fourth Amendment, Legal Information Institute). The fourth amendment is a delicate subject and there is a fine line between the fourth amendment and 'unreasonable search and seizure. '
ABSTRACT: Terrorists were very active long before September 11. This essay reviews the 1988 downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland and the March 1995 gas attack in the Tokyo subway. The results of these terrorist acts, who carried them out, how they were carried out, and what can be done in the future to prevent such incidents from happening again are all investigated.
To summarize the Fourth Amendment, it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search conducted by the government exists when the area or person being searched would reasonably have an expectation of privacy. A seizure takes place when the government takes a person or property into custody based on belief a criminal law was violated. If a search or seizure is deemed unreasonable, than any evidence obtained during that search and seizure can be omitted from court under
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
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 4th amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If it is violated by the government, all evidence found by the unlawful search and seizure must be excluded as per the exclusionary rule which serves as a remedy for 4th amendment violations. Before a remedy can be given for violation of the 4th amendment, a court must determine whether the 4th amendment is applicable to a certain case.
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.
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
September 11th, 2001, marked the beginning of a long war against terrorism. Nineteen militants from the group Al-Qaeda hijacked four planes to crash into three different locations: The World Trade Center in New York, The Pentagon in Washington, and it was believed that the fourth plane was headed toward the Capitol building or the White House in Washington D.C. On May 2nd, 2011, Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden was assassinated, since then there haven’t been anymore attacks lead by Al-Qaeda. But there are still other groups of terrorists to worry about.
America has had 21 terrorist attacks, from 2000 to 2009 consisting mostly of al-Qaeda and suicide bombers (infoplease.com). Osama Ben Laden, leading al-Qaeda’s attacks is fed up with the way America treats the world. Blaming America for global warming and determined to stop them by sending suicide bombers and hijacking planes. After the 9/11 attack America changed the way they looked at security, putting into effect; Airport Security Federalization Act of 2001: To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools (The Library of Congress).
The right of the individuals to be protected in their persons, papers, houses, and impacts, against preposterous searches and seizures, might not be defiled, and no Warrants should be issued, yet upon likely cause, upheld by Oath or insistence, and especially portraying the persons or items to be seized and the area to be searched (Holcomb, 2003). The Fourth Amendment protects the individuals from irrational searches and seizures, which implies that numerous searches are fine if they meet certain necessities. Searches are for the most part acknowledged rational when: a judge provides a search warrant depending upon possible reason; or ...