Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How is surveillance a privacy issue
Surveillance vs privacy rights easy
Surveillance vs privacy rights easy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How is surveillance a privacy issue
Kyllo vs. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) INTRODUCTION: In Kyllo vs. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), the police, believing there to be a marijuana set-up in the defendant’s place of residence, acquired a warrant to ascertain this for certain through use of a thermal-imaging scan. The scan, which was conducted outside the premises and measured heat signatures on the building relative to other residences in the same triplex. This brought the question of unreasonable search and seizure before the Court, but more significantly, the question of where the line should be drawn regarding the use of new advances in technology. FACTS OF THE CASE: Police, suspecting that the defendant, Kyllo, was growing substantial amounts of marijuana inside his unit of a triplex residence, scanned the units from outside by means of a device that measured heat signatures. This provided information on the amount of heat originating within the residence. The thermal scan revealed that a portion of Kyllo’s roof and wall had higher temperatures relative to other areas of the building, being …show more content…
As the device could not be used to penetrate walls and listen to conversations or observe conversations or activities, but only revealed hot spots on the outer walls, it was only observing the outside of the residence. Upon appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the thermal imaging evidence was acceptable on grounds that there had not been any expectation of privacy. This determination was made because Kyllo had not attempted to hide the release of heat from his residence and even if he had made an effort to conceal the thermal signatures, there would have been no expectation of privacy as it did not render visible any protected details of life within the residence (Justia,
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
Facts: On November 2006 the Miami-Dade police department received an anonymous tip that the home of Joelis Jardines was been used to grow marihuana. On December 2006 two detectives along with a trained drug sniffing dog approached Jardines home. At the front door the dog signaled for drugs, as well as the detective who smelled the marihuana coming from inside. Detectives then wrote an affidavit and obtained a search warrant that confirmed the growth of marihuana in Jardine’s home. Jardines was then charged for drug trafficking. Jardines then tried to suppress all evidence and say that in theory during the drug sniffing dog was an illegal search under the 4th amendment. The trial courts then ruled to suppress all evidence, the state appellate courts then appealed and reversed, the standing concluding that there was no illegal search and the dog’s presence did not require a warrant. The Florida supreme court then reverse the appellate court’s decision and concluded that a dog sniffing a home for investigativ...
...w enforcement to solve cases, is highly dependent on my ability to investigate and interpret evidence. Thus, if I did not know about the laws of a “knock and talk,” I could potentially ruin a case by getting something thrown out due to my failure of “knock and talk”. In other words, this case will highly affect any investigator in trying to solve a case. The rules of a “knock and talk” are the same as before, this case just elaborated on them. In my field this case will constantly affect the way I handle and talk with subjects near their home. I will also be subjected to the many details necessary to show that a suspect acted voluntarily and consensually in a “knock and talk” as well as be very careful and alert of my own body movements and words. This entire case provides a lot of information to remember about “knock and talks” that will be helpful in the long run.
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
Fred Korematsu was born in the U.S. in 1919. His parents were born in Japan. Since he was born in the U.S. he was a citizen. He grew up like a normal kid in California. As he grew up, his life was normal, until the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1942.
When is a search not a search? The Fourth Amendment was made to protect prevent unwanted search and seizure. Were DLK’s rights violated by using a thermal imager without a warrant? The Fourth Amendment protects citizens rights from unlawful search and seizure. In the case of DLK, the supreme court had to decide if the government went to far. The government went to far because the search violated the Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully obtaining information without a warrant.
Even though the prosecution presented evidence to the court, the only clear-cut hard fact the prosecution had against Anthony was that she failed to file a report for her missing daughter Caylee and that when she finally did a month after her daughter had gone missing, she proceeded to lie profusely to the authorities on the events that took place. The prosecution focused highly on the forensic evidence of decay located in the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car. The use of a cadaver dog to search the vehicle led investigators to be able to determine that a decomposing body had been stored in the trunk of the car. The forensics department used an air sampling procedure on the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car, also indicating that human decomposition and traces of chloroform were in-fact present. Multiple witnesses described what they considered to be an overwhelming odor that came from inside the trunk as it where the prosecution believes Caylee’s decomposing body was stowed. Several items of evidence were ruled out to be the source of the odor, as experts were able to rule out the garbage bag and two chlorine containers located in the trunk as the source. The prosecution alleged that Casey Anthony used chloroform to subdue her daughter and then used duct-tape to seal the nose and mouth of Caylee shut, inevitably causing her to suffocate. Based off the
Korematsu v. United States (1944) actually began December 7, 1941 with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The attack on Pearl Harbor then began the conquering of Wake, Guam, Philippines, Malaya, Singapore, Dutch East Indies, New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Burma. With the attack on Pearl Harbor, racism, which was hardly unfamiliar, became an even greater problem. The Japanese Government's attacks on Americans including; torturing, raping, and murdering was an excuse for Americans aversion towards the Japanese. Public officials began to lock up the Japanese people simply for their own good, for protection against the hate crimes.
Another, this device can serve as video evidence to prove who is right and who is at fault and also to show if the police used excessive force. On the contrary, many citizens believe the use of this device will invade their fourth amendment right, and it reads, "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. " Some questions that arise from the use of body cameras are, Is it reliable, Can the videos recordings be tampered with, the battery life, do officers have to operate it or it 's
The use of spectral evidence is currently illegal in court, in part because of the Salem Witch Trials and how a number of lives were wrongly lost based on flimsy, unverifiable evidence, or lack thereof. Although spectral evidence was used throughout the entire trails, it was challenged by Cotton Mather. He argued that it’s “dubious value,” was not suitable for the courtroom but nobody decided to listen to his thoughts until it was too late (Salem Witch Trials,
In the criminal justice system, the best chance of a fair trial and justice lies within cases that include physical evidence. Physical evidence, whether fibers, fingerprints, or DNA, can give a jury proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Physical evidence can convict a criminal, or it can free an innocent man. It can bring closure to families and to the law enforcement that work the cases. The following cases will show what physical evidence does in a criminal trial and the vast impact it can make. For each case I will examine how the physical evidence was important to the case and whether or not it could have made more of a difference if the presentation of the evidence were different. The five cases are: the Mosley case, the Warren case, the Chandler case, the Frediani case, and the Swift Case.
In this paper, I will discuss and give details as to what is needed for police to get a warrant and under what circumstances they are allowed to enter a home without a warrant. I will also provide an analysis as to whether the police had the legal right to access the Ellis home and their bedrooms. Additionally, I will explain the exclusionary rule and its importance and how it relates to this scenario. Lastly, I will also describe the steps in conducting this investigation while ensuring that individual’s rights were being protected and the evidence that was gathered would be admissible in a court of law. In the following paragraph, I will discuss what it takes for the police t...
Andrus, R., Bailey, J., Sprague, T., Springer, F., Tulleners, F., Wiersema, S., et al. (n.d.). Crime Scene
For decades, Law Enforcement agencies has relied on the many creations, and implementations of new technology to assist in producing effectiveness. The 1900’s was a time that intensified the capability of solving crime. But as technology continues to evolve, so will the possibility of deterring crime, and successfully apprehending suspects nationwide.
The use of computers in law enforcement has, in many cases, been a great idea.Officers can use the computer to store information, analyze particular objects found at crime scenes, and help in collecting information about criminals as well as victims.Some departments have begun to invest in automated fingerprint identification systems and a national program of mug shots for wanted fugitives.A department can also use computer related technology to set up surveillance of telephones, cars, street intersections, and other areas of interest around their jurisdiction (Osterburg and Ward 611-620).