Airport Checkpoints Research Paper

Would you want to have Federal agents come into your home and begin searching your possessions? Is exposing what you have inside your home, either personal belongings or simple everyday items to someone whom you do not know uncomfortable? In which situations should these searches occur without a warrant and do they violate the Fourth Amendment? There are many questions similar to these being debated at national level. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that the government cannot search you, your home, or your belongings without a good reason. Nor can the government seize your belongings without a good reason. An important test case of the Fourth Amendment was the case of DLK. In the case of DLK, did the federal government go too far in using its power of search and seizure? There are three main reasons why the government did go too far in DLK’s case: there was no warrant to prove the agents could use the thermal imager and scan DLK’s property, it violated his right of privacy in his home, and the thermal imager used to scan his property may not be 100% accurate, and that since this device scans objects/property, it may be considered a search. But in this case there was no warrant once again to show as evidence that the Federal agents had permission to use the thermal imager.

decided to overhaul their security protocols and specifically upgrade the security involving airports and airplanes. The upgrade in security of airports, although in some cases helpful, has caused an unnecessary amount of problems for American civilians due to the invasive changes made by the American government. Not only is it harder to get through security in America, but many of the American’s privacies have been taken away by the government in the name of safety as David Lyon says in his article on security changes in airports: “after 9/11, various policies and even laws concerning matters such as privacy and confidentiality have been overridden by the concern with ‘national security’”(405). Under the claim of safety, American and foreign civilians’ rights and privacy have been abused and taken away, leading to many people being overall upset and angry with the

No one should be searched without a good reason and warrant. People should have the right of privacy- it is important to them. It is ethical for police to have search warrants before searching a person’s personal belongings. There have been recent conflicts on police powers over the pass years. Police are disobeying the fourth amendment by searching illegally. Critics frown upon police, while supporters agree with the police. Being searched without a permit is unconstitutional, and police could take advantage of their power, and abuse it. It makes US citizens feel less secure and safe. Citizens need to be guaranteed rights as long as they behave.

“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.” (FindLaw, 2014)

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

Why do government agencies need a search warrant if they can collect data from a cell phone and link a person to a crime? If they used a classified means to retrieve the evidence, they do not have to divulge it. A driver is not required to give permission to search a vehicle; however, police may view the denial as suspicious behavior and the vehicle is subject to asset forfeiture. The association to a group that does not have a common belief with the rest of society can mean ruination for life as in the case with the Hollywood eleven. Investigation of allegations by a duly appointed officer of the law, while not particularly fast and sometimes ineffective, is the means to ensure that individual rights remain secure as intended by our founding

“Stop and Frisk” is a program put into effect by the New York Police Department that basically grants an officer authority to stop and search a “suspicious character” if they deem him/her to be as such. They don’t need a warrant, or see you commit a crime. 5They simply need to deem you “suspicious” to violate your 4th amendment rights without repercussions. Since its inception, New York City’s stop and frisk program has drawn much controversy stemming from the disproportionate rate of arrest. While the argument that the program violates an

Searching every person attempting to board a flight is easy compared to securing a huge land border. While national security is taken seriously concerning border crossings, it is also a contentious political subject. Politicians and business leaders have a large stake in keeping the border as open as possible and (I suppose) must balance this need with also defending the nation and meeting immigration laws. It is a mess that is made all the more difficult by the fourth amendment rights afforded every person from unreasonable search and seizure. The report “Protecting Our Perimeter: “Border Searches” under the Fourth Amendment” highlights the difficulties placed on border agents when it concerns searching people at or around the border. This coupled with the impossibility of searching 100% of all people entering or leaving the country by land, truly endangers national security as a whole. Where the fourth amendment is concerned, I feel the last sentence in the report really sums up the difficulty:

These pursuits are regularly unsuccessful on getting the criminals, and instead this policy is going against the 4th Amendment. Regarding the Bill of Rights the 4th Amendment is what gives us the citizens the right to be safe and secure in our personal space and also it protects us against any unreasonable searches without any documentation or probable

We are not fully protected from authorities searches because of the word “unreasonable” used in the Fourth Amendment. In the Supreme Court case, Katz v. United States, it was interpreted that unwarranted searches could happen if the person being searched did not have reasonable expectation of privacy. Without the Fourth Amendment, the police would be allowed to break into our houses and search whenever they please.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America in simple terms protects Americans from irrational searches and seizures made by government officials in situations where one would expect a certain degree of privacy. Except if the official suspects probable cause, in which case they can, legally search you or they could obtain a search warrant from a judge that allows a police officer to search for specific items at a particular place and time. However, most government officials allow their biased views and racist thoughts to penetrate into their work and make them the gears social injustice. In recent news most of the social

Within the criminal justice system there are warrant, and warrantless searches. Each are entitled to be covered by the 4th amendment, to protect a citizens rights. With the patriot act, it has made it easier for warrantless searches to be done, and by only needing probable cause. Police officers can have the mere suspicion, which is efficient enough to negatively influence what the legal standard means. When issuing a warrant, there is room for error. When this happens, and an officer follows through with the warrant it is still possible to be admissible in court. According to Funk and Wagnall’s (2016) under the 4th amendment of the constitution a search warrant can be issued under the oath of a complainant that is showing probable cause for its issuance (pg. 1). This is where searches that have probable must list specifics on the warrant, on what the police officers are looking for.

According to Simbro, “The Fourth Amendment provides that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” (566). Airport security searches are conducted without warrants and they are considered administrative

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 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 (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at

There are numerous conflicting views on the methods the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to examine a passenger who is going to board a plane. Although the methods use seem necessary for one's safety at airports, passengers feel that full body scans and pat-downs are a violation of their Fourth Amendment and the Privacy Act as Hunter, M.(2010) stated as one of the lawsuits made by a public interest research group. The TSA being able to search you without