Protecting The Public And Aid Law Enforcement

1917 Words8 Pages
Intro It’s no secret that surveillance and other sensing devices are used in the United States and across the world. The main purpose of the surveillance camera is to protect the public and aid law enforcement in solving, preventing crimes. However, a person’s privacy is questioned in accordance to the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The 4th Amendment protects people from unreasonable search and seizure. The problem is, how far does this protection go and what is considered an unreasonable search pertaining to a surveillance device? The Fourth Amendment The Fourth Amendment is located, in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment…show more content…
The Fourth Amendment was ratified in 1791. The amendment was heavily abused by British officials because of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures were the most important right held against the government. In addition, the Excise Act of 1754 made it mandatory for people to maintain an account of family’s annual consumption. It also allowed tax collectors to perform general searches. The text of the amendment is precisely described also. British and American critics were in protest with the act; they felt it violated the constitution and naturals rights of a person (Fuqua 2014). The Supreme Court first described the term, search, in the Boyd v. United States decision in 1886. The decision was based on the consideration if a search and seizure was equal to compulsory production to the privatization of the man’s papers. When Boyd was charged with illegally importing thirty-five cases of glass plates into New York, the government proceeded to retrieve the glass forfeited to the United States. In addition, the government wanted Boyd to provide an invoice about the prior shipment of glass plates. Boyd argued for an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment and the Supreme Court agreed in his favor. The decision clearly defined that the court was not going to tolerate the corrosion of the Fourth Amendment (Fuqua 2014). The case of Katz v. United States
Open Document