The Department Of Justice ( Doj ) Essay

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

The events of the San Bernardino shooting were a tragedy. 14 people were killed, and another 22 were injured when a married terrorist couple staged an attack on a Christmas party. This was an unmitigated catastrophe, but it spawned one of the most important security debates in recent memory. The FBI wanted to unlock one of the suspects phones, but were unable to do so because of security measures on the phone. The FBI wanted to brute force the password lock on the iPhone, but device would wipe itself after 10 failed attempts to unlock the iPhone. Thus, the FBI asked Apple to create an intentionally insecure iOS update, specifically for this iPhone, in order to bypass the security restrictions. Apple disagreed with the FBI, and tried to avoid helping the FBI in such a way, arguing it would undermine the purpose of security itself. Overall, Apple has the best argument, both legally and as a matter of public policy.

The two provisions that were struck down revolved around the 4th Amendment of unreasonable search and seizures in regard to intelligence gathering. This ruling stems from a case where the federal government arrested an attorney in the United States in connection with his alleged involvement with the 2004 Madrid train bombings. The lawsuit stated that the FBI illegally and secretly broke into both his home and office to gather evidence and were being protected under provisions of the US Patriot Act.

In order to keep a safe society, it is important to establish a nation with

America’s Founding Fathers believed in establishing a strong democracy that focused on the individual rights of man. The idea of moralities that humans naturally possess was a strong influence in the establishment of a country that attempts to provide a written decency that all should have a right to receive. The fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with many others, created in the Bill of Rights has become seemingly infringed in the name of security and overall welfare to all.

Since its inception, the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution have been expanding and evolving because of new technology. The Fourth Amendment generally protects us all from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government (Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure, n.d., p. 1199). Court cases such as Katz v. United States and Riley v. California highlight how new technology can lead to decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States that alter the protections provided by this amendment (Hall, 2015). In 1968, the Supreme Court decision in Katz v. United States fundamentally changed the measure used to judge whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurs due to new technology being utilized by law enforcement. The 2014 Supreme Court decision in the case of Riley v. California is a more relatable case, since it involves technology that the vast majority of us use everyday (Savage, 2014). This case changed the way law enforcement is able to legally search the cellphone of an arrestee, by strengthening the arrestee’s right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

Now for the case that has kept the nation on the edge of their seats, we have Apple v. FBI. This has really split the nation as people are torn apart by wanting to side with the makers of their beloved iPhone or the government that has given many their freedom. This all started with a tragedy, unfortunately, the tragedy the San Bernardino shooting. After the terrorists were killed, the FBI obtained the iPhone from one of the shooters and believed that they could find more information in it. They turned to Apple in order to open up the phone, as iPhones are set to ‘self-destruct’ all data after 10 failed password attempts. Apple flat out refused. In a letter to the public sent out by Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, said, “Once the... way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.” This essentially is saying that someone could come along after the phone had been

The Fourth Amendment is based on probable cause which means that there are reasonable grounds for an action. When police go to get a search warrant from a judge they must have a good reason. Probable cause in the fourth amendment, “protects people’s right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary governmental intrusions (L.I.I Fourth Amendment).” “There a circumstances when police feel that the public is at risk and they will then pursue a warrantless arrest (L.I.I Fourth Amendment).” When Apple receives a request from the government for customer information, they cannot oblige “without a court order(Apple).” It is important to some companies to protect their customer’s information, make sure it’s safe, and to ask for a warrant. Probable cause

In December of 2015, 14 people were killed and more than 20 people were injured in one of California’s most deadly shootings in recent history. A couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, opened fire in a conference center in San Bernardino. The two were later killed in a shootout with the police. Their case didn’t end there. The FBI searched their house, in which they found much evidence to back that this was a terrorist plot. But a crucial piece of evidence which they found was Syed Farook’s iPhone 5C. In today’s society, phones contain more information about ourselves than even we can remember. Emails, messages, notes, bank details and much more can be found on our phone. So when the FBI was able to get hold of Farook’s phone, they were more than content. But there was one more hurdle in front of them: encryption. Since we have so much information on our devices today, we have to have some form of protection against people who want to steal our personal information, scammers hackers and many. Apple has done this by encrypting almost every piece of user’s private information on their devices. The FBI wants a way around this encryption so that they can retrieve important information on Farook’s iPhone. They want Apple to create a shortcut that would allow them to bypass all of the security on Farook’s phone, but Apple is refusing saying that they want to protect their user’s privacy. Is the FBI forcing Apple to create a

The attacks on the United States of America on September 11th, 2001 fundamentally changed the way the government and its citizens viewed freedom and liberty. With the subsequent enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, security became the government’s top priority. (The USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.) Congress, eager to put a law on the books to prevent another attack, fast tracked the bill through both houses in six weeks. It passed by a near unanimous vote, with the majority of dissent coming from Democrats. A highly contentious and debated law, the USA PATRIOT Act infringes on Natural Law and the American citizen’s Civil Liberties. Also it violates the spirit and letter of the United States Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. Many amendments in the Constitution are at a direct contrast with the law’s many broadly worded sections, specifically the First Amendment’s right to free speech and freedom of assembly, and the Fourth Amendment’s guard against unwarranted and illegal search and seizure.

Apple has the right to resist the FBI’s pressure to hack Syed Farook’s phone. Some say that Apple had no right to resist because the FBI are working on a case, but to hack into someone’s phone breaking their privacy, which is violating the Fourth Amendment. On Google, the fourth amendment clearly states, “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The amendment does not say that third parties can force people to help aid the Federal Government. The FBI has no right to invade on Farook’s life. Some again say, yes they do, they are trying to protect Americans from future bombings, shootings, and any other types of terrorism. However, this may be true, it

The dispute between Apple and the FBI has been one of the controversial topics since the shooting in San Bernardino. The FBI wanted Apple to help “unlock” the iPhone; however, Tim Cook, an Apple CEO, refused to provide the assistance. Mr. Cook was right about doing so because of two reasons: customers’ important information must be protected, and the FBI’s order is a dangerous precedent.

It would have allowed any foreign government to force American companies to help in their investigations” (“PRO/CON: Should Apple have resisted FBI pressure to hack an iPhone?”) I believe that it was a correct agreement to have the FBI lose, and Apple win because we don’t want foreign governments to gain access to iPhones, it can affect our economy greatly. Which could be able to get secret government access, which right now we don’t want the Chinese government to obtain. Having this issue if the FBI won the case would have greatly decreased the popularity of the brand, and people would not want to buy iPhone’s because they would be afraid of their security access. The Article specifically states that “ Basic American rights were at stake, and the purpose of the law is to protect people’s rights.”( “PRO/CON: Should Apple have resisted FBI pressure to hack an iPhone?”) The FBI did not have a search warrant or anything to represent they had the authority to enter into the iPhone. It breaks a constitutional right in Article four, which states that people in the United States of America have a right from unreasonable

In today’s society, technology has become one of the most used and most sought after developments of the millennium. In a recent case the FBI petitioned for Apple to unlock the phone of Syed Farook, the man responsible for shooting and killing 14 people in San Bernardino, California. The FBI believed Apple should create a new software that would not erase the data from iPhones after ten failed attempts to unlock the phone. Apple replied that they had a responsibility and an obligation to protect the privacy of their customers. Supporters of Apple 's response have argued, creating a new software was not a wise decision. In the past, government agencies have been known for their abuse of power. Had Apple chosen to create a master key for this particular case, there would be no limit to government invasion of privacy. In the end Apple could have potentially lost costumers by changing the protection of their cellular products. The issue has already been raised that creating software to access one locked device could potentially open the door for hackers to invade millions of other people’s devices. I agree that Apple should not create a new software to unlock the phone because once a master lock is created there are no limitations to who or how the coding can be used.

Looking into criminal justice procedure, many administrations are at work. Starting with the police, to the courts and concluding in corrections. Though all these sectors have different tasks, their combined focus is processing the law. Regardless what the process is called criminal justice will continue to serve with discretion, conviction, and correction. When first presented with the question whether criminal justice is a system, non-system, and network I leaned toward a network. Throughout our discussions, lectures, and readings I felt the process presented itself as a network. Intertwined divisions working for a common goal. Further into my research and help from Webster, I decided that the criminal justice