Ethics Of Electronic Search And Seizure Essay

Today, Canadian’s lives today are as translucent as ever. Most organizations especially the government constantly watches each and every one of our moves. By definition, surveillance is any systematic focus on any information in order to influence, manage, entitle, or control those whose information is collected. (Bennet et Al, 6). From driving to the shopping mall to withdrawing money from the ATM machine, Canadians are being watched constantly. With Canada’s commitment to advance technology and infrastructure in the 1960s, government surveillance is much easier and much more prevalent than it was hundreds of years ago. Even as early as 1940s, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics used punch cards and machines to determine who is available

Did you know that 58% of employers have fired workers for Internet and email misuse? And 48% justify employee video monitoring as an effort to “counter theft and violence?” According to the “2007 Electronic Monitoring & Surveillance Survey” of which 304 U.S. companies participated in, computer-monitoring results have led to the highest cause of employee termination. These companies used several tactics to eavesdrop on employees while claiming to be managing productivity or for security purposes. Some argue that surveillance is absolutely necessary to help protect and grow a business; others argue that employee and customer rights come first. However, companies that use such tactics often violate the privacy of individuals, exploit their private information and even punish those that do not conform to their standards.

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

The simplest and most common type of warrantless searches are searches based upon consent. [1] No warrant or probable cause is required to perform a search if a person with the proper authority consents to a search. [2] A consent search requires the person being searched to freely and voluntarily waive their Fourth Amendment rights, granting the officer permission to perform the

The purpose of this paper is to discuss public school districts' limits on "hate" speech and

The United States Constitution affords all people certain rights. The Fifth Amendment states that we have the right against self incrimination. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search or seizure. People have the right to confront witnesses and accusers. Nothing can change these rights unless the U.S. constitutions were to be rewritten and that is not likely to happen. In this paper we will be examining the Fourth Amendment, learning the requirements for obtaining a search warrant, defining probable cause, describing when search and seizure does not require a warrant. We will also explain the rationale for allowing warrantless searches, examine the persuasiveness of these reasons, and determine if probable cause is always

R.v. Feeney (1997) is a important case for the development of a Feeney warrant, which is needed for the police to enter a dwelling house. This ensures individuals have privacy at their homes from the police making forcible entries. When a suspect gets arrested and their privacy rights are infringed. The job of the courts are then to evaluate the case, and check if the appellants rights were indeed violated, if so was it because the protection of society outweigh the individual right to privacy. First, in this paper we will discuss important section numbers relating to the Feeney case which includes section 8, 10 (b), and section 24 (b). Than we will examine the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Feeney case and how this case has impacted police in their work and assuring individuals their right to privacy. After we will look at two other cases precedent to the Feeney case that includes R.v. Godoy (1999) and R.v. Gomboc (2010). Lastly, the personal analysis section will evaluate the decisions made from the three cases, identifying whether the judges have made the correct decisions.

The past several years have seen a proliferation of legislation directed at controlling criminal activities through the increased application of new laws. The effectiveness of these new laws, remains in question due not only to their relative infancy but also due to a uniform determinism of what constitutes effectiveness. The purpose of this paper will be to review the Fourth amendment particularly relating to NSA, FISA, Title III and the PATRIOT Act.

To fully understand the role and related responsibilities of search and seizure in the public schools, the Constitutional rights of the students and case law must be examined.

Although people in the United States are entitled to privacy and freedom there is a limit to that privacy. State or federal officers are allowed where justified to search your car, house, property in order to seize illegal items such as drugs, illegal weapons, stolen goods just to name a few. When the police do searches it can be for various reasons it depends on the situation. They can have a search warrant to go into a premises and confiscate illegal paraphernalia or when doing a routine traffic stop an officer might become suspicious of activity that is not normal and conduct a search of the vehicle to see why the driver is not acting normal. When conducting searches it is required sometimes to get a warrant which is a document

I am doing this paper on electronic monitoring. I am doing this paper because I need a paper to write for you and this is the page I opened to in the book to get the idea. No, really because I believe that electronic monitoring is a terrific way to police probation and parolees when probation and parole officers are so severely overworked. By not having to check in on the offenders as much, because at any time we can hit a button and know exactly where they are, or be notified instantly when they are somewhere they shouldn’t be, it would be a lot easier on probation and parole officers.

Kerr overlooks important considerations in regard to the doctrine in an age where technology advances rapidly and so much of our information is given to third parties. What undergirds his argument is the need to maintain the balance between privacy and security. Law enforcement officers need to be able to conduct their investigation to catch savvy criminals while on the other hand, potential abuses by these officers on innocent persons exists in ancillary protections rooted in other principles. When viewed through a lens in which the focus is preventing abuse, few would disagree with him. However, the chief concern among critics of the doctrine in its current iteration is not the potential for harassment from law enforcement when they are investigating potential criminal activity, but how the doctrine greatly undermines privacy when, first, electronic data encompasses a great deal of the information people generate on a daily basis, and second, we convey this electronic information to third parties with the same

In law enforcement, protecting lives, safeguarding property, and reducing crime is constantly challenged by increasingly sophisticated criminal activities. Governments and law enforcement agencies strive to stay ahead of offenders and ensure the safety of law enforcement professionals relying more and more on rapidly changing technology. In-car camera systems, for example, are now valuable tools used to ensure and validate a high degree of officer professionalism (Schultz, 2016). But as criminal activities and technology changes, so does society’s views on justice. Issues related to Constitutional protections and citizens privacy as well as how defendants and victims are treated have been debated for a long time in the U.S. (“21st Century”, n.d.). Privacy, especially, is a sensitive but pertinent subject in law enforcement as the use of new technologies heighten concerns about adequate safeguards and misuse of information. Genetic information, such as

We are all familiar with the phrase, "A little birdie told me." But where did that birdie get his information? If he was like most Mockingbirds in the sky, his information was probably obtained through eavesdropping, which is not an ethical approach. This day and age with technology becoming more and more effective everyday it is not the birds that we have to worry about. Congress has recognized the way that technology has changed society and reacted by passing the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986. There are two main Titles discussed in this act, Title I--Interception of Communications and Related Matters and Title II-- Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and

I have long been interested in the history and ethical issues surrounding government surveillance. I found that the US Government infringement on the rights of private citizens began as far back as 1928 when the Supreme Court ruled, in Olmstead versus the United States, that evidence from unapproved wiretaps were permissible. That means that they didn’t violate the fourth amendment. The ruling claimed that phone conversations were not physical objects and no physical trespassing had taken place. Soon after, project SHAMROCK was developed. It was a system that collected international telegrams coming through private service providers and was used to crack down on Soviet espionage, without warrants. The program was in service for 30 years. Wiretapping was