The Death Of A Drone

The Fourth Amendment 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

The fourth amendment gives people the right to not get illegally search. In other words someone can’t just run up to you and search you they have to have a good reason too search you.. The fourth amendment however is not guaranteed against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.

In the supreme court Muehler v. Mena case, Mena sued the officers in federal district court for violating her 4th amendments rights. The fourth amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The officers heard that there was that she was affiliated with gang violence and deadly weapons so they searched the house that Mena and others were in. The officers did things like handcuff Mena and the others. They also questioned her about her immigration status. She believed this violated her 4th amendment rights that should protect her from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Mena tried suing the officers in federal district court for violating her Fourth Amendment rights after this. She felt

To understand this situation I decided to look up cases that reflect on their fourth amendment being violated. The case that stood out to me the most was Mapp vs. Ohio. In 1957, police officers received an anonymous tip that Mapp was hiding a wanted man because he needed to be questioned for a bombing. Then Police officers went to Mapp’s house and wanted to search her house. She then denied them entry, because she needed to see a warrant to let them in. After some hours went by, the police officers forcibly entered her home and recalled that they received a warrant. Then they proceeded with the search and found some books, pictures, and photographs in violation of 2905.34 of Ohio's Revised Code. Then during her court trial she appealed her sentence, because they did not receive a valid search warrant and the police officers violated her rights. Even though they found her having possessions that were illegal, they could not hold it against her. The issues with search and seizure are usually towards the issue of violating our rights. One of the rights that we are getting violated is the right if privacy. It is the interest in being free from observation that matters to us, because they always try to know what people are saying and or doing without probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

Legal Reasoning: The ultimatum of the Fourth Amendment is whether the search was reasonable. The Supreme Court upheld that a warrant is generally required to search a home. Warrantless searches are not reasonable when two co-tenants are present and one of the tenants objects. However, the court held that a same search is reasonable when the opposing tenant is not present. Since the opposing tenant; Fernandez, was arrested and not present, the court affirmed that the search was reasonable

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important constitutional protections; however, several procedural issues may arise. As seen in this case, the validity of the search warrant was questioned as well as the extent of the protection afforded. A search may be illegal even if a search warrant was issued; probable cause is

In 2005, Albert Florence was admitted to a New Jerseyś Burlington County Jail for a minor offense and was thoroughly searched. According to Florence, his 4th Amendment was violated, and the searches conducted against him were unreasonable. He was forced to disrobe, squat while naked, shower in front of security, and prove that there was no contraband stored in or under his genitals. After Florence 's release from jail, he sued the government and went to the federal trial court, which ruled in favor of the petitioner (Albert Florence). However, the Third Circuit reversed, deeming that searches done in jail were constitutional due to the fact that they were promoting and protecting safety. The law states that “Strip search, including a digital rectal search, of a prisoner who allegedly refused to cooperate and injured a guard in resisting was reasonable and justified by a legitimate interest in maintaining order and security.” After the Third Circuit 's reversal the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. After viewing the precedent cases, the Supreme Court ruled that searches were lawful and did not in any way revoke 4th Amendment rights.

All Americans are entitled to their rights. The Fourth Amendment states that we the people have to deny search and seizures from law enforcement without a warrant. The fourth amendment generally prohibits police from entering a home without a warrant unless the circumstances fit an established exception to the warrant requirement. According to the book The Constitution: Our Written Legacy by Joseph A. Melusky, the Fourth Amendment gives the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although we are entitled to these rights, police sometimes use and abuse their authority. In many cases, the Fourth Amendment has helped prove the innocence of one’s actions.

The conviction was overturned, the evidence against the petitioner was deemed to be a fourth amendment violation and excluded from the case against him.

When conducting possible searches and seizers, the Fourth Amendment is made to protect unreasonable conduct. Due to

I am able to see the world from a different perspective literally and figuratively. With a remote in my hand, I can look at the iPad's screen and see a different point of view. My dad's drone is a gateway to a different world above us that not many are brave enough to explore. Something that stands out about myself as a person is my way of looking at situations as a whole rather than individually. This is reflected in my interest for flying these cameras high in the sky where I have full control. Like on the camera of the drone, you need to take every aspect into consideration when trying to get the perfect shot. Relating to my personality, I am very open minded which I feel is a very important trait to have in today's society. Considering all options in a situation is important to being successful in the future. Some people are very narrow-minded. They don't like to listen to other people's opinions and they are stuck in their ways. Being broad minded is the key

In this modern era, the value of life is what makes sacrifice meaningful. In Agamben’s Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life he discusses the concept of homo sacer, which is “ a body that can be killed but not sacrificed.” He also talks about the state of exception and how “the sovereign exception (as zone of in distinction between nature and right) is the presupposition of the juridical reference in the form of its suspension.” (Agamben 21) This concept can be related to the issues involving drones and drone warfare. In Gregoire Chamayou’s A Theory of the Drones, he focuses on how drones are transforming the laws of wars, and radicalizing certain aspects in warfare, that is bringing in a new era with immoral dimensions. This could alter the political arena for the countries that already use them. (13) The danger therefore, does not lie with the drone operators, as they no longer face the danger of being exposed to the enemy, this has also immunized them to the possible trauma of reflecting upon their own violence because they are viewing everything though a screen a thousand miles away. The real danger lies with society as a whole with the politics of waging war removed from the purview of citizens, this affects societies continued ability to critique or reject violence.

Technology is something that has advanced significantly in recent years, allowing for a lot of innovations and advancements in fields such as business, the medical field, science, and many more. With these advancements in technology, however, have also been advancements in warfare, including the invention and use of drones in warfare. This is the challenge the reader is faced with when looking at this particular case study. It involves a Senator who supports President’s Obama’s increased use of drones in warfare, but is not sure whether or not to continue with this opinion, or when enough is enough. The Senator sees both advantages and disadvantages of using drones in warfare, and the reader is asked to pretend to be a researcher and advisor with a team for this Senator. The reader is tasked with examining this issue, and determining whether or not the Senator should work to increase U.S. spending on drone soldiers. The correct argument would be that the Senator should not work to increase U.S. spending on drone soldiers. Increased spending on drone activity by the U.S. would only entice terrorists and other countries to develop and use potentially dangerous drones as well, as many would see drones as a threat. In addition, the detrimental mental and moral affects that drone operators experience, along with the potential for more civilians to be killed (which has often been the case) by making war distant and less personal with the

Good Kill is a war movie. After the 9/11 attacks on the United States the military started using weaponized unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s). It is a movie about drone strikes in Afghanistan in the fight against terror. It is set in 2010 at a time when there was a large escalation of Taliban deaths. Ethan Hawke plays Major Tom Egan who is a United States Air Force pilot.