Analysis Of American Taught Police: Surveillance In The 'Land Of Freedom'

If you grew up in an average middle-class town in the United States you were probably raised on the premise that the police were there to protect and fight crime, however, in many of today’s urban centers throughout the country, the tension between the police and the citizens has a very different relationship. The term ‘police’ brings many images to mind, while the objective of the police is to prevent and detect crime, this is far from the way so many Americans feel. Far from the original purpose of the police, the use of brutal and sometimes lethal force has evoked questions regarding the skewed system and the relationship between both in the communities. Ta-Nehisi Coates explores the issue in the article, The Paranoid Style of American Policing, often bringing up complex issues, and effectively brings the issues to life through anecdotes. Coates presents a logical, thought out and well-executed argument surrounding the cracked police system in America. Due to the well-supported thesis, the structure of the argument, and lack of fallacies, Coates position is adequately supported through the use

The 4th amendment protects the citizens of the U.S. rights against unlawful search and seizure. This includes building a database of information that can be retrieved at any time for any reason just for the sake of collecting information. This gives the government access to personal information without the need of a warrant, just to “look into” someone’s life. If this is okay for the government to do, what is next? Personalized RFID tags for every individual who comes into the US? This would allow the government to secure the country by knowing where every individual is located in the country. Where is invading others privacy okay for the sake of securing the country from

In his article The Paranoid Style of American Policing, Ta-Nehisi Coates suggests that police officers in the United States are too quick to use lethal force as a resolution to de-escalate a potentially dangerous situation. He believes they should be held accountable for their actions, the same way every day civilians are.

The Fourth Amendment is the first line protection against the government and their officials from violating our privacy. The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place. This Amendment protects us in the following situations such as being questioned while walking down the street, being pulled over while driving, entering individual’s homes for arrest and searching of evidence while there. In most scenarios, police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant, or a belief rising to the

Technology has become very effective for a thriving generation, but it also possesses a handful of flaws that counter the benefits. Technologies help people post and deliver a message in a matter of seconds in order to get a message spread quickly. It also gives individuals the power to be the person they want to be by only showing one side of themselves. But sometimes information that had intentions of remaining protected gets out. That information is now open for all human eyes to see. This information, quite frankly, becomes everybody’s information and can be bought and sold without the individual being aware of it at all. However, this is no accident. Americans in the post 9/11 era have grown accustomed to being monitored. Government entities such as the NSA and laws such as the Patriot Act have received power to do so in order to protect security of Americans. However, the founding fathers wrote the fourth amendment to protect against violations of individual’s privacy without reason. In a rapidly growing technological world, civil liberties are increasingly being violated by privacy wiretapping from government entities such as the NSA, Patriot Act and the reduction of the Fourth Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court has defined the Fourth Amendment to mean that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy for your personal information as well.” Take the United States v. Leon opinion for example; the Judge considered the illegal evidence obtained by law enforcement to be admissible because it was collected by “good faith”. Yet, the warrant was later founded to be flawed. The Rutherford Institute also states , “The Supreme Court has also held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply in certain situations: (1) probation or parole revocation hearings; (2) tax hearings; (3) deportation hearings; (4) when government officials illegally seize evidence outside the United States; (5) when a “private actor” (i.e., not a government employee) illegally seized the evidence; or (6) when the illegally seized evidence is used to impeach the defendant’s

The U.S. government overreaches the limits of the fourth amendment by illegally spying, collecting data from citizens, and cannot confirm the intention is actually to foreigners although it may help to prevent terrorism. It's unfair that the NSA and U.S. government are able to invade the privacy of anyone from innocent mothers to bank robbers when actually only the bank robbers phone calls should be surveilled. Without the protection of the fourth amendment life in the United States as its known would come to an end.

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

Differences and Similarities in Police Training and Policy in the United States and other Countries

The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s property from the government.  Although citizens have a right to privacy, the government can violate those rights to some extent as they see fit.  Searches and seizures by law enforcement officers can be made with or without a warrant.  Due to the Fourth Amendment, in most cases, law enforcement officers must have a signed warrant by a judge.  In some conditions, however, they are able to stop and

The Fourth Amendment Precludes worry about government trespassing. David Sirota author of the website”Does the government actually understand the 4th Amendment?” says "Mother Jones Reports that an 86 page court ruling determined that the government had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and engaged in unconstitutional spying"(understand). Cornell University law school states, "electronic surveillance is also considered a search under the fourth amendment.” (Fourth amendment). Cornell University also states,"A seizure of a person, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, occurs when the police's conduct would communicate to a reasonable person."(Fourth Amendment).According to the American Civil Liberties Union the NSA examines

America’s Founding Fathers believed in establishing a strong democracy that focused on the individual rights of man. The idea of moralities that humans naturally possess was a strong influence in the establishment of a country that attempts to provide a written decency that all should have a right to receive. The fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with many others, created in the Bill of Rights has become seemingly infringed in the name of security and overall welfare to all.

After the horrific terrorist attack on the date of September 11th, 2001 the U.S has passed a law to help prevent terrorist attacks. Through the use of tapping phone lines and checking citizens Internet usage. The U.S. department of Homeland Security’s purpose was to organize the National Security Agency, the Pentagon, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency. The design was intended to product the people of the U.S. It allows the government to search people’s home without a warrant. The causal factors that allow the government search through without warrant are: emails, phones and search engine searches. There is a problem the 4th amendment “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

Since the time the framers of the constitution, technology has improved significantly which has led to an increasing concern in the privacy of an individual. Technology, used by government agencies and commercial enterprises, has led to a change in one’s privacy and freedom. For this reason, the agencies and enterprises have been called into question of infringement of the fourth. Using the lessons learned from history, the framers of the constitutions created the fourth amendment, which protects from unreasonable searches, and the fifth amendment, which prevents a person from incriminating himself or herself, to create a government with just laws, but with the advancement in technology, the fourth amendment needs to expand its policies to fit the changes in modern society.

The fourth amendment states 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, 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”. This amendment has been extended to secure the protection of some personal information. This interpretation of the fourth amendment has been the deciding factor in several Supreme Court decisions.