Pros And Cons Of Search Warrants Still Apply Today

A search warrant is a request marked by a judge that approves cops to hunt down specific articles or materials at a pointed out area and time. Cops get warrants by giving a judge or magistrate with data that the officers have assembled. Generally, the police give the data as composed explanations under pledge, called affidavits, which report either their own particular perceptions or those of private subjects or police covert sources. A judge who accepts that a testimony makes "reasonable justification" to lead a search will issue a warrant. The Affidavits need to build more than a suspicion that criminal action is a foot, however it doesn't need to show verification past a sensible uncertainty. An application for a warrant must have support

One common idea many Americans have is that the USA Patriot Act keeps them safe. Even Robert Mueller, the former director of the FBI, believed having such an act in place prior to 9/11 could have prevented the attacks (CBS News). He further explained that having the act in place at the time could have tracked the phone of one of the terrorists that carried out the attacks. He implies here that the information from the act is

See many Americans think that with this act, the Government may phone tap your house and invade your privacy. They feel that the Government would be able to here every word you speak over the phone. I mean if I wanted to I could turn on a CB radio and listen to the right frequency and listen to what you have to say whenever you make a call now, so forget about the wire taps. Regardless of how many Americans see it, it’s not as harsh as they read it and interoperate. The Patriot Act is set fourth to protect the

Americans in that time were worried about being attack again. Soon, President George W. Bush signed the patriot Act and U.S. Congress passed it on October 26, 2001. The act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to listen on everybody’s phone calls, read their emails or instant messaging, and search the private records. The way it allows the rights of any suspected terrorist to be taken away without probable causes of criminal. The Patriot Act lacked effectiveness, moreover, it took away human’s right and most importantly it violates human’s privacy.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution does not allow unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and is required to be supported by a reason. When the government spies on citizens internet there is no individual warrant and the inspection is not supported by a reason. The people have not agreed to their information being looked amongst and it is their individual choice if they want to share it with someone. The fourth amendment protects Americans from this unreasonable search due to its private information being accessed without a

The majority of U.S citizens believe that the government spies on everyone’s and anyone’s emails and that they intercept phone calls, text messages, and social media. But, in fact, the NSA has certain rules and laws set in place in order to make sure they don’t do such a thing. The NSA also doesn’t intercept everyone’s email, phone calls, texts, and social media, they only investigate certain people that they believe may pose a threat to the peace. In an article regarding if the NSA was acting within the law, stated,”The National Security Agency's collection of telephone and other communication data has been done entirely within the law; Americans are not being spied upon. The country's various intelligence programs operate with strict oversight and accountability, and those who work in such agencies are committed to protecting the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans" (Clapper para. 1). This proves that the NSA isn’t spying on everyday Americans, but, in fact, protecting the privacy and the liberty of

Officially given its name on the fourth of November 1952, the National Security Agency was developed to ensure the safety of American citizens (Howe 11). In an effort to prevent any unauthorized spying on innocent civilians a court known as FISA was created in 1978 to regulate the NSA. Up until the events of September 11th, 2001, the NSA was used strictly as a tool for foreign investigation to decipher international communications (“Frequently Asked Questions About NSA” 1). Twenty-three days after the Twin Towers fell, President Bush passed the Patriot Act (“Timeline of NSA Domestic Spying” 16). This act ushered the NSA into a position of limitless capability. Millions of Americans are having their personal lives followed, tracked, and recorded into mass data pools. This unethical acquisition of personal information is in strict violation of the Fourth Amendment. Immediate action must be taken by the Government to return the rights assured by our Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

To some, the United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) act is a law essential to winning the War on Terrorism; for others, this act is viewed with utmost contempt for its Orwellian nature allowing Big Brother to read your email and look through your library records. The security versus liberty debate prevails with both sides citing legal and ethical reasons in support or in opposition to this controversial act.

The presence of national surveillance in the United States is a widely debated topic, and there are many positives and negatives to both sides. Although it has been operating for such a lengthy time, the true actions of the NSA were revealed recently in the Snowden Leaks of 2013. Many state that the NSA is good and necessary because they “have nothing to hide” and because it will prevent future terrorist attacks. However, others argue that the surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment and is useless. Even though there appear to be many pros of having the NSA operate as they currently do, they should be disregarded because such intrusive surveillance is unlawful, racist, and ineffective.

"USA Today confirms: the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans." (Opsahl 28 Sep. 2013) It’s no secret that the U.S. government agency known as the NSA, National Security Agency, has been monitoring phone calls and Internet usage of United States citizens since the early 2000’s during George W. Bush’s time in office. During his presidency, Bush authorized the motorization of millions of citizen’s phone calls. (Tebbutt 25 Sep. 2013) The NSA created a secret program called “The Highlander Program” which was designed to monitor satellite phone transmissions on the Inmarsat network in the Middle East. During this secret program, the NSA did not monitor any United States citizens. Bush claimed the surveillance was limited to the al Qaeda, but that simply was not the case. (Forgang 27 Sep. 2013) Does the United States government have the right to listen in on civilian’s phone calls regardless of the reason? As seen in the media, most citizens don’t want the NSA to be listening in on their calls and other forms of communication. In Samuel Greengard’s magazine article, Spies Among Us, he explains, “The boundary between protection and privacy has always been fuzzy.” (Greengard 27 Sep. 2013) The point he is offering is

Are our governments worthy of the authority that we entrust them? America is known as the land of liberty and freedom but is it worth the name when our governments are engaged in surveillance activities against its own people? To make a statement about the government's surveillance activities each individual has to choose whether they value their right to privacy or national security. After consideration I decided to argue my paper from the reasoning of secrecy of the program, then state the problem of transparency in the program, and end the paper with a legal argument of violating constitutional rights. Therefore, I argue that my right to privacy is more important than national security and that the program is unconstitutional.

The authors explore an issue at the very heart of the surveillance legitimacy, they seek to explain where the NSA derives authority to operate and collect data. They further examine the legal capacity to conduct such actions, absent traditional requirements of search and seizure, as defined by the Fourth Amendment of the

The new acts state that the NSA may not listen in to phone calls, or read emails, where United States citizens are involved, without the suspicion of them currently residing outside of the United States. However, the new acts require no individualized warrants when any situation that the NSA screens involves, or may involve a person, whether United States citizen or not, who they suspect to have been outside of the United States or currently outside of the United States. As Jack Balkin, professor at Yale Law School states, “The Fisa Amendments Act of 2008, effectively gives the President authority to run surveillance programs similar to the warrantless surveillance program (secretly implemented by George Bush in late 2001).” And if you still don’t believe that these government programs could be violating the rights given to you by the fourth amendment then look at the response that was published when senators began asking the NSA exactly how many Americans were having their phone calls or emails screened without individualized warrants, “the implication that NSA 's collection is arbitrary and unconstrained is false. NSA 's activities are focused and specifically deployed against - and only against - legitimate foreign intelligence targets in response to requirements that our leaders need for information necessary to protect our nation and its interest” (NSA). This statement was published a month before President Obama announced in his

It would also be protection from warrantless spying in terms of mass data collection . Individual freedom and privacy online came into question around three years ago when Ex NSA contractor Edward Snowden exposed data collection practices being used by the NSA. An article titled Beyond Snowden: an NSA reality check , overreach is a serious concern . While claiming that coverage from some publications and newspapers is overblown , the intelligence community has had a problem in the past with being forthcoming ( Hayden , 2014 ). Also , the NSA's abilities have been called into question in the article titled Spying on Allies . The article brings up times where the legality of the activities in the NSA come into question , and implications of the United States spying on allied countries. Upon hearing these accusations against the United states , counties such as Germany , Mexico , and Brazil condemned it as a betrayal of sovereignty (Easley , 2014) . With surveillance being a concern , one may have second thoughts when it comes to using the internet . While there personal use of encrypted messaging or storage , commercial use of encryption allows companies to protect their information in a market environment (Samoriski , Huffman , & Trauth , 1997 ) . In the paper Encryption and the First Amendment , it is stated that in 1890 the two men Samuel Warren and Louis Brandies claim that the right to privacy is inherent in the United States constitution . The claim stated that since the fourth amendment protected citizens from unreasonable search and seizure , that it is a defense of one's right to privacy (Samoriski , Huffman , & Trauth , 1997 ) . An example given by the paper is the case Berger vs. New York . In this case charges were dropped because the court ruled that an unwarranted intrusion had happened , and that it violated the

The history of warrantless searches in the United States started with only Thirteen Colonies. The British Empire were able to search homes and businesses with a warrant. The United States Government created the Fourth Amendment to stop all warrantless searches. The Fourth Amendment has been subject to interpretation from the executive and judicial branches of the United States.