More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of the fourth amendment
A court case dealing with the fourth amendment
Analysis of the fourth amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Analysis of the fourth amendment
In the case, Carpenter v. United States, the question is posed whether the US Government needs to obtain a search warrant before collecting incriminating location information from a cell phone company. Timothy Carpenter was suspected of participating in numerous armed robberies. Therefore, the FBI showed a judge that the records they wanted were related to a criminal investigation, and they received records about Carpenter’s cell phone from his wireless phone company. The records included information about which cell phone towers Carpenter’s phone pinged off of and the call logs. These facts were then presented in Carpenter’s trial, where he was convicted of participating in and organizing nine armed robberies. The FBI is not wrong for using
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
A warranted search is per say reasonable. Officers may then employ various reasonable means of obtaining the information, e.g. search the content of U.S. mail, one’s house or office, or deploy an undercover agent as in Lewis v. United States (1966). They may, without need for physical intrusion as under the archaic trespass doctrine, utilize modern surveillance methods, such as electronic eavesdropping as in Lopez v. United States (1963) or heat signatures. (Solove and Schwartz 83) Under the third party doctrine, officers may obtain information that you voluntarily provide to your bank, accountant, ISP or e-mail provider as per United States v. Forrester (2008). (Ibid 197; 199) Conversely, “a warrantless search is generally considered to be per se unreasonable.” (Ibid 99) As noted in Katz v. United States (1967), “‘the mandate of the [Fourth] Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes,’ and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable…” (Ibid 99) Fail to meet any of the four elements and the warrant does not meet constitutional muster (see Berger v. New York (1967) wherein officers failed to stop surveillance at
On September 4, 1958, Dollree Mapp’s was convicted in the Cuyahoga County Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Mapp v. Ohio - 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). On March 29, 1961, Dollree Mapp v. Ohio was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States after an incident with local Ohio law enforcement and a search of Dollree Mapp 's home (Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). In the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment protects and prohibits all persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, can evidence obtained through a search that was in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights still be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This is the issue that will be thoroughly examined in the landmark case of Dollree Mapp v. the State of Ohio (henceforth
The emergence of new and innovative technology can be used in many deceitful or secretive ways by law enforcement agencies to convict a suspect. The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights has had a large influence in regulating the ways that law enforcement agencies may use technology against the everyday citizen. Technology can be used to obtain information on an individual without the individual being aware of the invasion of their privacy: e-mail accounts can be hacked, IP addresses can be traced, phones can be tapped and tracked, cars can be bugged.
In the cases of Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, the Justices looked at whether police need to obtain a warrant to search the content of a cell phone that is seized from a person who is arrested. In Riley, the defendant was...
In the American constitution the fourth amendment reads as follows; 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. The fourth amendment protects personal privacy and every citizen’s right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their homes, businesses, and personal lives. However, when the fourth amendment was written by America’s founders, the world was a very different place with limited technology. The amendment does not specifically cover telephones or computers leaving the issue up to the courts. There have been recent articles about warrantless wiretapping in the name of national security against terrorism.
The decision of Marshall v. Barlow, 1978 immediately affected the field of public administration. The result of the Barlow’s case required that the governmental agencies obtain warrants to search or inspect an organization. A warrant provides assurance from a neutral officer that the inspection is reasonable under the Constitution, is authorized by statute, and reveals the administrative plan containing specific neutral criteria. Moreover, a warrant advises the owner of the scope and objects of the search, beyond the limits of the inspector.
The USA Patriot Act of 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272) expanded a number of exceptions to the traditional search warrant requirements. Ordinarily a person subject to a search warrant is entitled to notice that it was issued. The USA Patriot Act allows magistrates to issue what are often referred to as “sneak and peak” warrants that do not require law enforcement to notify the person subject to the search. The act also expanded the abilities of law enforcement to install “roving” wiretaps of telecommunication devices used by individual suspects without naming specific telephone carriers in the warrant. It also allowed officers to search stored e-mail and voicemail
A cases that demonstrate the controversiality of freedom religion is the Lemon V. Kurtzman case in 1971. This case involved Pennsylvania and their Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act that allowed for states to fund for Catholic schools for teacher salaries, textbooks and instructional materials. Mr. Lemon a parent of a Pennsylvania student had sued the state stating that the law was unconstitutional. The outcome of the case was that the Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Lemon and stated that the law does advance religion upon school. Mainly because all the schools that were being funded was only Catholic School and this was being influenced to all schools. After this cases the Lemon Test was created and their were three aspects to
In the article “That’s No Phone. That’s My Tracker” authors Peter Maass and Megha Rajagopalan exclaim, “Many Police agencies don’t obtain search warrants when requesting location data from carriers”, and “If someone knows exactly where you are, they probably know what you are doing”(Rajagopalan and Maass, 2012). All of which express the motives of the NSA and all of those stalking innocent citizens. In addition, not only are their actions repulsive, but also
They are violating the fourth amendment by getting information from cell phone companies without the permission from customers and using cell phone towers to access data without permission. Going down to the basics of the amendments, the fourth amendment states,”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.”(Ake...
Though some may believe that only foreigners visiting the country are the ones being searched, “the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) of Florida recently filed complaints with DHS over allegations that Customs Border Protection (CBP) agents demanded cell phone passwords, confiscated devices, and asked political and religious questions of at least ten US citizens at the border”(Privacy SOS). Often times American citizens feel that they are more protect because they are a citizen but their privacy can also be invaded by CBP agents. American citizens can feel more protected if agents are required to obtain a warrants before their privacy is invaded. Another case claims that a US man was assaulted by a border agent after he denied access to his cell phone passcode (Privacy SOS). The CBP should only be able to search devices if they have a warrant. Following President Trump’s travel ban, a NASA engineer was required to surrender his work phone that contained confidential information before being released (Kopan). The man was forced to hand over his device for no reason and because of this he disclosed not only his personal information but his company’s information. A law requiring a warrant to search devices will prevent personal information from being
As we already know, the National Security Agency has already stopped about forty-nine homegrown terrorist plots in the United States. Now had these plots actually gone through and happened, many lives would have been lost. In fact, according to President Obama, lives have been saved directly because of the program. Opponents of mass surveillance may argue that the National Security Agency is violating rights, but no rights are being violated at all. People still possess their constitutional rights, including their rights to free speech, their rights to practice their religion, their freedom of the press and other the rights provided in the Bill of Rights. According to Roger Pilon, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Cato Institute, the National Security Agency only collects metadata, or data regarding the person who made the call, the location, and other general information, but not the name of the person linked to the phone number. In 1979, in Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that using pen registers to track phone calls was not unconstitutional. Pilon goes on to state that, the names linked to the phone number are only granted once the National Security Agency is granted a warrant, just as required by the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, once a warrant is granted to view the contents of the communication, that content can only be used for matters of national
The United States Federal government only asked Apple on behalf of the protection for Americans from terrorism, not to invade privacy. When a third party discovered a solution to cracking the iPhone, the FBI jumped on the opportunity and strictly stayed within their restrictions. Justice Newman claims that, “the FBI is reviewing the contents of the phone