Brown Vs Texas Case Study Biometrics

Over time, technology has impacted the police and other law enforcement agencies with new devices for gathering evidence. These new tools have caused constitutional questions to surface. One particular case in Oregon of an individual (DLK) aroused such question. DLK was suspected of growing marijuana inside of his home. Agents used a thermal imager to scan DLK’s residence form the outside. The results indicated heat, just like the kind that is generated by special lights used for growing marijuana indoors. Constructed by the scan, a judge issued a search warrant. A warrant – a legal paper authorizing a search – cannot be issued unless there is

Crime labs, lie detector test and fingerprinting are all very well known type of policing introduced by the Berkeley Police Department under August Vollmer. Vollmer’s enthusiasm for scientific lie detection was a natural outcome of his stand against the third degree, and he never lost faith that new breakthroughs would eventually correct the inadequacies that plagued the use

Justice Scalia with three other justices argued that the intrusion on the vehicle without a warrant is what made the tracking of the vehicle movements a violation of the fourth amendment. Plurality opinion used the property theory of privacy from the eighteenth century. The property theory of privacy is that one has privacy in things that they own. Using this theory, Justice Scalia came to the ruling that Jones’ fourth amendment right was violated when the agents applied the GPS to Jones’

DNA testing was first used in criminal prosecutions in 1985 and is now admissible in all states. (Hails, 184) Scientific and legal communities seem to universally accept the use of DNA as “good” evidence. Questions could arise regarding testing procedures. There are several testing methods that have been proven reliable and easily pass general acceptance and scientific validity tests. This is causes number of Daubert cases questioning DNA to decline. “In most cases, the tests that are used are well established and do not require a separate hearing” (Hails, 160)

Beginning in the mid-1980s, the development of DNA analysis technology has revolutionised the field of forensic science within the criminal justice system. As the refinement of procedures and technology continues, even minute samples of biological material (including blood, saliva, semen and skin cells) are able to be analysed and used to link or acquit perpetrators of crimes. (Whitney, R n.d.)

United States v. Antonie Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945, (2012) is a case where Defendant came under suspicion of trafficking with narcotics. Agents installed a GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of his wife’s vehicle while it was parked in a public parking lot. Over the 28 next days, the Government used the device to track every single movement of the vehicle. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Government’s installation of the GPS device on defendant’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, was constituted a “search”. Under the common-law trespassory test, the Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. Such a physical intrusion would have been considered as a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was originally adopted. Defendant possessed the vehicle at the time the Government trespassorilly inserted the information-gathering device. Although the Government forfeited its alternative argument that officers had reasonable suspicion and probable cause, the conviction was overturned. In this case the Supreme Court announced that a warrant is required to track a suspect through GPS systems. Regardless of the car being in public or private property, a warrant is needed to be able to intrude someone’s personal property; in this case the defendant

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

We Americans are very fortunate that we have one of the top ten amendments that grant us the right to our privacy not being violated. The Fourth Amendment search and seizure clause focuses primarily on privacy; and this is enforced to ensure that citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also does not matter what level of law enforcement jurisdiction an officer is apart of, whether it be State or Federal they are not allowed to violate this right. This particular amendment has been ameliorated many times, and that is to meet the needs of the American people. This paper shall discuss the following: the history and purpose of the Fourth Amendment, an explanation of whether or not the United States requires police to

Jones, “the Government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search.’” They stressed the importance of fact that the Government had “physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information.” Under these circumstances, it was not necessary to inquire about the defendant’s expectation of privacy in his vehicle’s movements in order to determine if a Fourth Amendment search had occurred. They continued to reaffirmed this principle in Florida v. Jardines, where they held that having a drug-sniffing dog nose around a suspect’s front porch was a search, because police physically entered the enclosure of the home and gathered information without being permitted by the

scientific law enforcement in his creation of a mass fingerprint file in 1926 and the

In this article about the U.S. vs. Jones cases is about a police who had put a GPS on Jones jeep to track down his movement. The officer in this case found that Jones had in store of illegal drugs and money in a safe house and arrested Jones. Although Jones may have in possession of illegal drugs the officer had violated Jones fourth amendment right of unreasonable search and seizure that had violated Jones privacy by implanting a GPS on his jeep without a warrant. The court found out that the officer did have a warrant but it was already past the expires date and question the use of technology that could easily violated the constitutional rights. In result the court threw out Jones's crimes and claim that officers are not allowed to use any

Forensic scientists are a staple in the court system. Juries rely on them to examine evidence, and trust their scientific input. With such a responsibility, forensic scientists are expected to be honest individuals who are exceptionally knowledgeable in their field. Yet, that is not the case as there have been multiple lab scandals in the country. When a lab’s wrongdoings are exposed, it creates a flurry of problems.

The search of a vehicle because of its mobility has different issues under the Fourth Amendment than for homes and buildings. Because of a vehicle’s mobility, it could drive right through a court’s jurisdiction before a warrant could be obtained. Since all vehicles have windows, persons who are inside the vehicle and who have placed personal items within the interior of the vehicle may expect an arguably lower probability of privacy. Motor vehicles, as well as their operators, have been subject to extensive regulation by the states; court interpretation of the right to be secure against unreasonable searches in one’s papers and effects when they are contained within a vehicle shows that a person has a diminished expectation of privacy in a vehicle.

With regard to the US, where social science and STS research have, focused less on forensic databases and more on the production of expertise and evidence in court, Jay Aronson provided a historical account of the early practices, the scientific and legal controversies, and the ultimately successful acceptance of forensic DNA evidence in court in 2007. Another particularity of social science and STS research in this domain is that it has so far mostly concentrated its “high end” forensic technologies, namely those which received a lot of public attention because they were new, because stakeholders in the criminal justice system struggled to determine the parameters of scientific reliability and admissibility, or because they were prominently featured in the media. While the use of DNA analysis for police investigations and forensic casework dates back to the late 1980s, the second half of the 1990s marked the beginning of the quest to render DNA profiles systematically and routinely searchable and minable by setting up centralized DNA databases in many countries around the world. A DNA molecule is a long, twisting chain known as a double helix. DNA looks pretty complex, but it's really made of only four nucleotides: Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine. These nucleotides exist as base pairs that link together like a ladder. Adenine and Thymine always bond together as a pair, and Cytosine and Guanine bond together as a pair.

Today, more than ever, the quality of evidence in criminal cases is scrutinized because of contamination. Contamination is the introduction of something that physically corrupts a substance at a crime scene that was not previously there; it comes in many forms and most often times comes from the humans who investigate a crime scene. It is imperative that prevention of cross-contamination is implemented when gathering evidence. Several of the more sensitive forensic techniques such as trace analysis, bloodspatter interpretation, and DNA comparison are not being used to their fullest potential. Items of physical crime scene evidence are not always visible to the naked eye and may be easily overlooked so deliberate and methodical approach to collection and preservation of evidence is essential. Prosecutors have lost cases due to crime scene contamination; this could be prevented by simple and productive behaviors. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a leading case on physical evidence, stated: