Arguments For The Violation Of The Fourth Amendment

On the date of February 4th, 1965, believing that the Petitioner had been using public pay phones to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began their surveillance into the life of the Petitioner, Charles Katz. Fifteen days later on February 19th, 1965 FBI agents working the case against the Petitioner had gained access to a phone booth within a set of phone booths that the petitioner frequented on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, and summarily recorded the petitioner’s side of conversations he was having on the phone within a booth nearby. This surveillance lasted until the 25th (excluding February 22, as no evidence was obtained due to technical difficulties) the date of the petitioner’s arrest, which took place immediately after he exited the same set of phone booths. In this case there are two major constitutional questions which need to be addressed: (1) whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether the search warrant used by the FBI officers in this case violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution in that the warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; (b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search

Austin Roberts Dr. Reed INTRO AM GOV & POL 11 November 2014 Why the 4th Amendment is Important Imagine that you are hosting a dinner party in your house with your friends and family. Everyone is laughing and having a good time until you hear someone bang on the door. When you open the door, several DEA agents charge into your house with a couple of dogs. After several of minutes, the agents finally tell you that they got word of a meth lab somewhere in your neighborhood.

Some people are saying that letting the government go through all your texts, emails, and call are violating the Fourth Amendment. In some cases I do feel that they are but in others I don't. On one side I feel that the government just wants to project the US form another attack like 9/11. But I also feel that you really don't have any secrets from the government because of them going through everything you've sent.

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

It was October 12, 2001, in the House of Representatives, A sickly sight, politicians gathered around the constitution, like vultures over its prey, was slanting over their chairs as the president George Bush walked to the bill, We were waiting outside the building, a row of protestors voiced their opinions like small animals. The politicians looked at the constitution, then at the fourth amendment, these were the condemned rights, due to be violated within the next week or two.

The United States Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment applied a lesser degree of protection to motor vehicles based on being able to easily and quickly move them before a warrant can be obtained. The regulation surrounding automobiles gives them a lesser expectation of privacy and less protection under the Fourth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court held that Carney’s motor home should receive the level of constitutional protection of a motor vehicle rather than a residence, since Carney’s motor home was not in an area traditionally used for residence and was licensed to operate as a vehicle on public streets. The United States Supreme Court also held that the search was reasonable considering that the officers had probable cause

1. Identify and describe the three possible alternatives for applying the Fourth Amendment to “stop and frisk” situations. Also, identify which alternative the U.S. Supreme Court adopted and explain why.

Although the Constitution gives us this freedom, there are instances when police and government violate it. For instance, a case concerning desecration of the fourth amendment is Mapp V. Ohio. This situation was taken place in Cleveland, Ohio and involved police entering a Citizen named Mapp’s house without a search warrant. The police entered Mapp’s basement because they believed he was involved in sheltering a suspected bomber. At court, Mapp insisted that her fourth amendment rights had been sullied and the high court said evidence was detained unlawfully. Without a search warrant, it could not be used in criminal trials. This case is a perfect example of our rights being dishonored by police. In conclusion, the court modified and

The Fourth Amendment is another interesting Amendment which involve searches and seizure. In the U.S., cops generally require a court affirmed warrant to lead an inquiry of a private home or business and gather proof identifying with a criminal action. Portrayal from their opposing association with British powers within the colonial days, the composers of the Constitution instituted that procurement to secure natives' protection and guarantee that police did not mishandle their authority. Today, as wrongdoing battling innovation has developed more refined and police observation more complete, such laws have ended up open to different understandings by officers and the courts.

American history has seen past and present controversial cases surrounding the issue of GPS tracking. Essentially, the Fourth Amendment provides documentation that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and enforces that search warrants are formulated on probable cause, not on suspicion of law enforcement officials. Moreover, the Fourth Amendment has been around for nearly 250 years and has served its purpose for American Citizens, however, there are many relevant cases that suggest when the Amendment violated the rights of an individual. Below are controversial cases that caused

The government has the power over many things but this time they went a bit too far and took advantage of their power by spying on us. Is it a conspiracy or a fact?The US government with assistance from major telecommunication carriers including At&T , has engaged in massive,illegal dragnet surveillance of the domestic communications and communication records of millions of ordinary Americans getting information which i think at times it can be necessary.Someone can be plotting a terrorist attack , murder or robbing a bank. Some say the NSA(National Security Agency) has invented futuristic “toys” they have become creative finding new ways to get Intel on us.

Did you know Evidence that is obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment is usually not admissible in court? It’s actually interesting how this works. The amendment i chose is the 4th one because i like my persons and properties protected. This right was put in the bill of rights because there were to many unreasonable searches and seizures. To me i feel this right is used today to keep the searches and seizures under control. I think the 4th amendment may be under attack by the officers who do illegal searches and violate the amendments.

Fortunately, within the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution, the Fourth Amendment exists, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures (Gardner & Anderson, 2016). The Fourth Amendment gives citizens the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d., n.p.). If this right is violated because law enforcement officers did not follow the correct procedure of obtaining a warrant that describes the person or items that will be seized, the search and seizure must be deemed unconstitutional (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). In the case of the defendant, it is evident that search and seizure misconduct of fellow officers occurred that violated the constitutional rights of the

The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which was established in the seventeenth and eighteenth century English common law. Aside from the rest of the amendments in the Bill of Rights the Fourth Amendment can be traced back to a strong public reaction from some cases back in the 1760s. Two of these cases happened in England and one case happened in the colonies. These cases involved some pamphleteers who would pass out pamphlets to the public in order to spread their word around. These pamphlets however ridiculed the king and his ministers. After finding this out the king issued warrants to have the pamphleteer’s homes ransacked and stripped of all their books and papers. Even back then the pamphleteers knew that their rights

The Fourth Amendment 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 Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized” (Smentkowski, 2014). The Fourth Amendment clearly states that an individual has the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but what constitutes a search? The Bill of Rights was created due to the founders and the authors of the Constitution wanting to protect and preserve the rights of the citizens. The Fourth Amendment