Privacy And Freedom From Government Intrusion

The Fourth Amendment is the first line protection against the government and their officials from violating our privacy. The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place. This Amendment protects us in the following situations such as being questioned while walking down the street, being pulled over while driving, entering individual’s homes for arrest and searching of evidence while there. In most scenarios, police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant, or a belief rising to the

Is anyone’s private information contained in their cell phone actually private? Are appointments, bank information, conversations, the user’s location or other sensitive personal information truly confidential? Is there a Big Brother watching? There is no definitive answer to any of these questions. From the beginning of time to now, privacy has become more and more scarce. Through new developments in technology, it is hard to believe that someone is not watching your move at any given moment. The government’s job is to keep Americans safe, but where is the line drawn? Where is the difference between having a reasonable doubt and accessing information solely because these government officials have the power to do so? The government has infringed upon the rights of the American people when it comes to this topic.

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.

I could be driving minding my own business and a drive by a police officer just parked somewhere and police officer spots me and pulls me over for some reason. The police officer orders me out of my vehicle. Maybe I was speeding and I did not know? Or maybe the police officer wants to search me and my car? Can the officer do that? The answer to all these questions are no, Thanks to the Fourth Amendment, The police officer has limited power to seize and search me or my car (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr). Now, the Fourth Amendment has been questioned repeatedly during the last several years, as police and higher intelligent agencies in the United States have engaged in a number of controversial activities. From the federal government collecting telephones and Internet connections to protect us, due to the War on Terror and trying to prevent the same damage that happened on 9/11. Many municipal police forces have engaged in violent use of “stop and frisk.” There have been as far as incidents were police officers were force to shoot civilians (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr).

Most Americans feel trapped by the government. They believe that the government is spying on them just to do so and that there is absolutely no reason for it. However this is wrong because the government has several reasons to spy on us Americans. Even though this may seem outrageous, it is needed and there are ways the United States’ citizens have privacy. With all of these false accusations it is simple to see why people would be supportive of our right to privacy. On the other hand, the government eavesdropping on the people of the United States has helped save many lives and justice being served. The United States of America is a free country, so we should have the option to be spied on by the government; however, as citizens we do

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “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 warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. It consists of two clauses, the reasonableness clause which focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure and the warrant clause which limits the scope of a search. There are many views on how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, especially by today’s standards. The world has evolved significantly since the implementation of the Bill of Rights. As it evolved, time brought about numerous cases on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. When plaintiffs are not satisfied with the decision of lower courts, they can

On his website, a Utah DUI Attorney, David Rosenbloom speaks about violations of the Fourth Amendment.  He states that police officers “pay little attention to the fourth amendment… [because] it is not a self-enforcing right, such as the freedom of speech” (Rosenbloom).  In short, if a citizen believes his or her rights were violated and they were illegally searched/things were seized from them, they must “ask a court to examine the case and apply the fourth

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects one’s rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also states that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. Probable cause can be defined as a person of reasonable caution who believes that a crime has been committed and the person accused has committed that crime. Modern law has afforded police officers an incentive to respect this amendment, known as the “stop and frisk” act. The Stop and Frisk law allows police officers to stop someone and do a quick search of their outer clothing for weapons: if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place and the person stopped is armed or dangerous. The reasonable

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

Facts: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and states that an officer to have both probable cause and a search warrant in order to search a person or their property. There are several exceptions to this requirement. One exception to this is when an officer makes an arrest; the officer can search an arrestee and the area within his immediate control without first obtaining a search warrant. This case brings forth the extent of an officer’s power in searching an arrestee’s vehicle after he has been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car. On August 25, 1999, the police responded to an anonymous tip of drug activity at a particular residence. When they arrived on scene, Rodney Gant answered the door

Law enforcement officers across the country have undergone extensive training and have been entrusted with powers to protect the public. They have every right to remain vigilant in conducting their job to ensure their safety as well as the publics. They are authorized to conduct specific types of searches with out a warrant and three types of searches are: plain view search, consent to search, and stop and frisk. We will look at each type of search closer and attempt to throughly describe each. A plain-view search is a tool an officer can utilize to legally confiscate or seize a specific item. This type of search requires the officer: to view the item while he or she is in the immediate area, recogize and realize the item can be seized,

There are many challenges that law enforcement agencies faces when it comes to enforcing public safety at the same time protect the rights of individuals. This paper will focus on several key topics involving the relationship between public safety and individual rights. The first topic is the statutory authority and responsibilities of government officials, security personnel, and private citizens. The next topic involves the practices or laws relating to search, seizures, and surveillance by police, corrections, private citizens, and security personnel. This paper will also compare the laws relating to the use of

The right to privacy was not established as a constitutional doctrine until after the result of the Supreme Court ruling in the 1965 case of Griswold vs. Connecticut. The court decision was based on the interpretation of several amendments within the Bill of Rights. Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly state anything about the right to privacy, a combination of its sections was used as the framework for establishing the right (“Griswold v. Connecticut (1965),” 2007).

First of all, it is important to know the definition of privacy, it is the right to control who knows what about you, and under what conditions. The right to share different things with the people that you want and the right to know that your personal email, medical records and bank details are safe and secure. Privacy is essential to human dignity and autonomy in all societies. If someone has committed a physical intrusion, or, in discussing the principal question, has published embarrassing or inaccurate personal material or photographs of the individual taken without consent, he is invading their right of privacy, which is in the article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.