David Martin's Surveillance

A Surveillance Society by Thompson and Hickey is about how public surveillance is everywhere, looking at everything, and is never turned off. First, the PATRIOT Act was passed by Congress shortly after 9/11, and has allowed the government to start watching people. Ever since then the U.S. has increased its use of cameras in public places. Today, just about everywhere businesses and shoppers are, there are cameras. High-tech surveillance devices are more prevalent across populated areas. Corporations, agencies and even individuals monitor social areas with surveillance. With today’s technology, cameras are able to scan images and identify people. Organizations regularly share databases, swapping personal information. Some are opposed

In Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977), the Supreme Court elaborated on the standards to use in determining the procedure for a motion to suppress due to suggestive pre-trial identification. The Court held that “reliability is the linchpin” in determining the admissibility of identification testimony, and applied the “totality of the circumstances” standard of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967).

and what they are equipped to do. Some of these devices are able to scan and analyze , what they

Present sense impression exception permits a court to admit hearsay testimony of a statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition or immediately thereafter. People v. Brown 80 N.Y.2d 729, 731, 610 N.E.2d 369, 594 N.Y.S.2d 696 (1993); People v. Melendez 296 A.D.2d 424, 426, 744 N.Y.S.2d 485 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 2002). In People v. Brown the police received a 911 report while burglary was in progress. The caller led the police to arrest the two men who were responsible by providing description of their clothing, personal features and their whereabouts while observing them from afar. The Court of Appeals held that the 911 recording were admissible inasmuch as they were contemporaneous reports of events. People v. Brown 80 N.Y.2d 729, 731, 610 N.E.2d 369, N.Y.S.2d 696 (1993). Furthermore, such statements may be admitted even though the declarant is not a participant in the events and is an unidentified bystander. People v. Brown 80 N.Y.2d 729, 734, 610 N.E.2d 369, N.Y.S.2d 696 (1993). In our case the 911 report was received while police were investigating the scene therefore the event that was being observed by the unidentified woman was the police investigation scene. The woman provided the 911 operator

The United States District Court of Allen did not properly instruct the jury that they must consider positional predisposition. The second element of the entrapment defense, predisposition, has two components to it that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to defeat an entrapment defense. These two components are positional readiness and mental willingness, which require the government to prove that a defendant was both ready and willing to engage in the criminal activity to show he was predisposed.

The case being heard today is about the government surveillance of Muslims in New York city and New Jersey. In 2012, the Associated Press, published a series of stories that revealed the existence of a secret surveillance program implemented by the New York City Police Department, also known as the NYPD. The purpose of this program was to surveill and monitor the Muslim American communities in New York and New Jersey since the year 2002. According to the Associated Press, surveillance of these Muslim Communities took place in a variety of settings including: Muslim-owned businesses, muslim college organizations, and mosques to name a few. In the Associated Press’s coverage of this program, they divulged document after document acknowledging the existence of its program as well as its purpose of the program; however, the leaked documents by the Associated Press were unredacted. This alerted the general public to names of various individuals as well as organizations and business that were being surveilled by the NYPD.

Four Vanderbilt football players were accused of raping an unconscious female undergraduate student (Allyn par 1). The situation transpired in a very odd way. Officials were reviewing the surveillance footage of how a door was broken on one of the halls in the dorm when the officials noticed something strange occurring (Allyn par 1). They noticed many men walking in and out of one specific room, then, one player used a towel to cover the security cameras (Allyn par 1). They concluded that the broken door could have only been done by one of the football players. They began to interview the football players and concluded who was involved (Allyn par 7). Other pieces of evidence like cell phone videos were used to determine who participated. This example, provides support as to how surveillance cameras aren’t an invasion of privacy, rather they are beneficial in determining who participated in criminal

High police surveillance among communities of color enables black and brown bodies to be criminalized at higher rates than whites increasing the rate of incarceration of African American and Latino communities. Historical conditions as slavery and the development of policing in America have had an effect on the communities targeted by police forces. The police forces came from a history of slave patrolling which primary goal was to patrol slaves and catch the “bad” runaway slaves. In the article “What is the difference between slave Patrol and modern day policing? Institutional Violence in a community of color” Marlese Durr writes, “Davis and Melissa Barlow (199) note that by 1837, the Charleston Police Department had 100 officers whose primary

The ninth circuit downright rejected the ruling in Hollingsworth in United States v. Thickstun, 110 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997). This court interprets Jacobson as applying traditional entrapment law and for it to be unnecessary to expand it. Id. at 1398. Having concluded that Jacobson does not require “positional” predisposition, this court declined to adopt such a requirement. They did note that a person's ability to commit a crime may illustrate their predisposition to do so, but this should not become a separate element to be proven.

Imagine a world where your every move was being monitored. A dark world where it is no secret who you are, where you have been and who you associate with; now include who you love, who you pray to and what you just ate for dinner. The word privacy doesn’t exist in such world and it is such world that we are heading to.“Big Brother is watching you!” This quote by George Orwell couldn’t have been truer. Every aspect of our lives is being sorted through as Big Data this very moment. Government surveillance has prevailed by the name of security. But, is government surveillance of internet digital communications like social networks, cell phone calls, text messages, and emails really a public service of security? Or

In order to overcome the complications in the last test courts may rely on the proximity test to determine if the defendant’s preparatory actions came close to the completion to the intended crime (J R Articles, 2001). In People v. Rizzo 1927, the defendants attempted to rob a payroll clerk. They chose to drive around New York and spent a considerable long time doing so. The police intervened and arrested them before they could find a clerk. The courts did rule that this was not a punishable attempt. In this case the defendants never did come close to attempt because the clerk was never located. Preliminary acts should be punishable when the intent is established because if the police did not intervene, then they did pose a dangerous risk of success in completion of the crime. Courts are more known to

Recent media stories have caused uproars among communities and riots against law enforcement agencies due to publications of pictures or video footage of law enforcement officers exhibiting the use of force. Due to these recent cases, many are requiring a reform in the surveillance of law enforcement officers to provide viable evidence to support their case on the degree of force they used during the incident in question. One of the majorly used and promoted reforms is the use of body worn cameras on all officers during their shift. Research and studies have promoted this technique as it offers many advantages to help resolve the issues faced. Body worn cameras provide agencies with video footage of all occurrences as if through the

Thesis statement: Government surveillance should be stopped because it is an invasion of privacy and gives the government control that is not enumerated in the constitution.

Whether or not Brenda knows that Jim is watching her is the crux in this situation whether or not Jim would be charged with stalking. Going over the statute in Colorado, Stalking is defined by C.R.S. § 18-3-602 (2015) crime against person. Felony. (1) A person commits stalking if directly, or indirectly through another person, the person knowingly: (c) Repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, places under surveillance, or makes any form of communication with another person, and cause that person to suffer serious emotional distress. (a) Commits a class 5 felony for a first offense except as otherwise provided in subsection (5) of this section;  (5) If, at the time of the offense, there was a temporary or permanent protection order, injunction, or condition of bond, probation, or parole or any other court order in effect against the person, prohibiting the behavior described in this section, the person commits a class 4 felony. (9) When a violation under this section is committed in connection with a violation of a court order, including but not limited to any protection order or any order that sets forth the conditions of a bond, any sentences imposed pursuant to this section and pursuant to section 18-6-803.5 or any sentence imposed in a contempt proceeding for violation of the court order shall be served consecutively and not concurrently. In annotation for the statute Colorado Title 18 lists that a person commits the offense of stalking if her or she knowingly engages in conduct that causes a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family or intimates. People v. Chase, 2013 COA 27, P.3d_. Evidence sufficient to establish a “credible threat”. The credible threat does not need to be separate from the harassing behavior or verbal. Jim's stalking did not include a overt threat to Brenda, nor is it clear that Brenda was even aware

In today’s online world, it is almost impossible to remain anonymous. With every website and service requiring a log in which stores personal information, and surveillance users are unaware is even there. Although this sounds like an invasion of personal privacy and loss of personal liberty, it has turned into the “norm” and most of the time goes on without even being questioned. In some cases, consensual surveillance has been turned into forms of entertainment. The average person online is very aware of the surveillance taking place, but it is likely they are unaware of the severity of the surveillance and the justification behind it. It is known that the main use of surveillance is to keep citizens safe and free from terrorist attacks