Fourth Amendment Framework

• Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is primarily concentrated in four areas: 1) defining “searches”; 2) the Warrant Requirement, in which warrantless searches are semantically precluded except in specific and tightly constricted situations; 3) the Probable Cause Requirement, whose exclusive provisions are closely associated with the Warrant Requirement’s proscription of police inquiries into same; and, 4) the exclusionary rule, which presumptively excludes any information or evidence gathered in violation of the preceding two (Rickless, 2005).

Today, electronic surveillance remains one of the most effective tools the United States has to protect against foreign powers and groups seeking to inflict harm on the nation, but it does not go without a few possessing a few negative aspects either. Electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence has likely saved the lives of many innocent people through prevention of potential acts of aggression towards the United States. There are many pros to the actions authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pertaining to electronic surveillance, but there are also cons. Looking at both the pros and cons of electronic surveillance is important in understanding the overall effectiveness of FISA. [1]

In the years since the passing of the Patriot Act, there has been much controversy and debate regarding the positive and negative advantages, and consequences of this bill. As a member of the law enforcement community I have experienced firsthand some of the changes the Patriot Act has brought upon this nation. A result of this experience along with information obtained in the studying of this act and

Since the passing of FISA came after a widespread finding of warrantless wiretapping by a number of different government entities, Congress along with the Carter administration, needed to carefully craft a bill that not only reconciled national security needs to conduct domestic surveillance, but also continued to protect individual liberties such as that of the first and fourth amendments. The once top-secret Carter administration memos regarding FISA offer a first-hand glimpse at the thinking that went into

To begin with, the Fourth Amendment was constituted to protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, there are times and cases in which an investigation is started and evidence is collected illegally. There are doctrines such as The Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree in place to eliminate any evidence to be used in court if obtained illegally. This paper will differentiate the two doctrines as well explain how and why the two could possibly be incorporated in the case of “Who did it.” We will also look into the immunity that government officials may have pertaining to civil liability and see if officers affiliated with the “Who did It” case are protected from their actions.

Lastly, Section 218 has been perceived as expansion of the Fourth Amendment for the scope of what the amendment allows is very narrow. First, the Fourth Amendment was already extended, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was put into place. This Act allowed more to fall under the requirements for probable cause when it came to wiretapping, then once the Patriot Act was put into place it allowed wiretapping to go beyond gathering information for foreign intelligence. In layman terms, the government can conduct physical searches and wiretapping with simply stating that it is to gather information for foreign intelligence.

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,

The government’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has been used to amass a collection of phone records, gain access to other records, and carry out search and seizure without a warrant; however, the government has used this approach to find threats to America.

However,the Fourth Amendment has been debated for the last several years, as police and intelligence agencies in the United States have

In 1917 the United States government enacted a much disputed law entitled the Espionage Act. It had been debated in the years leading up to the United States involvement in World War I. Faced with outspoken citizens who were critical of any direct participation in the war and with a growing fear that any public dissent would make it difficult to conscript the needed man power for U.S. involvement, President Woodrow Wilson’s administration looked to make such actions criminal. Throughout the almost 100 year history of the Espionage Act it has come to blows with the United States Constitution, particularly the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, on many occasions. Thousands of American’s have been charged under the Espionage Act’s

To continue, an article titled, “How the NSA’s Surveillance Proceeds Threaten America’s Privacy”, talks about the FSIA Amendment

This paper will examine the Fourth Amendment and take a closer look into what is the requirements to obtain a warrant and when there is no need for a warrant to search a civilian or his or her property. Also the Patriot Act is infringing on our fourth Amendment right to privacy.

When evaluating at the changes in the law since the attacks on September 11, 2011, few would argue that they had been needed for some time. The Justice Department reformed to improve its abilities. The ability to identify, dismantle, and penetrate any terrorist-plot with structural reform. With the development law enforcement tools and its intelligence, along with the sharing of prevention and information, we must protect civil liberties and privacy interests. The department has been working tirelessly with other partners throughout the intelligence community. Whether it be military, law enforcement, or counterparts across America or from around the world, they will never rest.

The United States Code (U.S.C.) “establishes and governs the form, function, duties, and responsibilities of the US Government”. The foundational to US National Security and foreign relations are based on the three titles in the U.S.C, namely, Title 10, Title 22, and Title 50; which “govern US Armed Forces, the Department of State, public diplomacy efforts, and national defense” (American Security Project, 2012). However, the National Security Act of 1947 was the first U.S. law on the conduct of intelligence operations. The act established the Central Intelligence Agency “to collect, analyze, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence to assist the President and senior US government policymakers in making decisions relating to national security” (Central Intelligence Agency (2013). This intelligence law help to define the roles of policymakers, (Executive Branch oversight, and Congressional oversight) while making decisions relating to national security; and also defined the scope and functions of intelligence community. For instance, the President who is the head of the executive branch and commander in chief has the authority to direct military operations and intelligence activities against external threats resides in his Constitutional executive and commander-in-chief powers (Wall, 2011).

Constitution to include personal civil liberties about information gathering intelligence operations. The purpose of this literature review provides a historical overview of operational intelligence activities through researching information-gathering efforts before the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act. Additionally, the analysis will inquire into their legitimacy or misrepresentation regarding the constitutionality of application as well as a review of modifications to information collection programs after USA PATRIOT Act implementation and impacts on intelligence collection operations. Lastly, the inquiry will examine the USA PATRIOT Act revisions ramifications regarding civil liberties, and the impact of the