The First Amendment And Technology

In the case of Brinegar v. United States, the petitioner claimed that the arresting officer violated his 4th amendment rights and illegally search his car. In the search and siezure the officer found that the petitioner was transporting intoxicating liquor into Oaklahoma, which is a direct violation of law. The courts found that the arresting office had arrested the petitioner on the same violation several months earlier and this was enough reasonable cause to conduct the search ans seizure.

We all expect to have privacy in our homes, but just how much privacy do we actually have? In Oregon, DLK was suspected to be growing marijuana in his home, so the police used thermal imaging, without a warrant, to provide evidence to arrest him. DLK claimed that his right to protection from search and seizure, provided by the fourth amendment, was violated. The Supreme Court then had to decide if the thermal imaging scan infringed DLK’s fourth amendment rights. While he may have been growing marijuana in his home, the U.S. Government violated his fourth amendment rights when they used thermal imaging, without a warrant, to gather evidence.

Throughout the past centuries, the United States has encountered many court cases dealing with illegally searching citizens homes and using the evidence found against them. Cases dealing with Search and Seizure have dated back to Mapp v. Ohio, in which Dollree Mapp’s apartment was illegally searched and child pornography was found. This case raised the question, may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This issue is a major problem because it could lead to many citizens rioting and even more cases dealing with this controversial topic. In spite of many attempts to eliminate illegal search and seizures, it has still been a reoccurring problem. Regarding the issue of search and seizure, the Supreme Court has developed a much

The question brought up to the court resulting from this case was, was the evidence admitted at trial from Riley's cell phone discovered through a search that violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches? The Supreme Court ruled

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”.

In 1949, Wolf v. the People of the state of Colorado questions whether or not the states can deny the due process law that is required under the Fourth Amendment in a state offense. (FindLaw, 2014) Dr. Wolf was in trial for conspiracy for conducting an abortion on Mildred Cairo. The prosecutors obtained Dr. Wolf’s appointment book and was used as evidence against him. (HENRIKSEN, 20140 Mr. Wolf’s referred to a previous 1914 case, Weeks v. United States, and claimed that his appointment book had been seized in violation the Fourth Amendment. In Weeks v. US it was ruled that any evidence from an illegal search would not be admitted in a federal court. Justice Frankfurter argued that although he agreed that the exclusionary rule was a great way to prevent illegal search and seizures, however, it was not the only way and he denied to imposed this act among the

The Court faced the question of whether the search of Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

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 constitutional issue involved in this case involved the incorporation of the 4th Amendment's prohibition against the

“Nothing is more clear than that the Fourth Amendment was meant to prevent wholesale intrusions upon the personal security of our citizenry, whether these intrusions be termed ‘arrests’ or ‘investigatory detentions.’ ” Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 726-727.

Dating back to Colonial America, tax collectors were abusing their rights with general warrants by conducting illegal searches, and seizing individuals without probable cause or evidence of wrongdoings (Guide, 2015). Our founding fathers established the Fourth Amendment on December 15th 1791, and would further protect each citizen with the right to search and seizure. However, many cases have claimed illegal searches and seizures, resulting in numerous lawsuits where evidence was obtained. Many factors fall under search and seizure, from homes and airports to a single lawn. The purpose of this paper will be to inform the reader of the legal definition of the

One of the most famous cases that influenced the Fourth Amendment was that of Entick v. Carrington. This was only one of many civil cases against officials who raided people’s homes and other places in search of materials connected with John Wilkes' political pamphlets that attack both the government and the King. Mr. Entick, who was an associate of John Wilkes, sued because agents had entered his house forcefully and broken into desks and boxes that were locked. They then seized pamphlets, charts, and other printed materials. The courts decided the warrant gave the officials the right to search and seizure and the ability to issue a warrant for all a person's papers rather than only those accused of being criminal ''contrary to the genius of the law of England.'' The warrant was said to be invalid because it had no probable cause and no record was made of what had been seized. The Supreme Court has said this case is a guide to understanding what the Framers meant when writing the Fourth Amendment.

The English case became a guide that helped the framers of the United States of America’s Constitution in establishing this amendment. At the time of writing, the only valid solution to an illegal search and seizure was a law-suit to gain money to pay for damages caused (Meese 3). Within the colonies, the only purpose to conduct searches and seizures was for the sole reason that colonists were smuggling in goods following the taxation from the English crown. In cases regarding colonial smugglers, James Otis was able to defend on the basis of the “writs of assistance” (Meese 3). The founding fathers became aware of the issues of unreasonable searches and seizures, thus establishing the Fourth Amendment. To govern this amendments activity, a body of law was established by our nation’s courts on the levels of state and federal (Meese 3).

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.

The exclusionary rule is not in the Constitution because it was made by the court due to the need that presented itself. The intension was to ensure that the 4th Amendment is kept and not violated. Most people are aware of their right to privacy, and how it protects them from unwarranted searches. Nevertheless, most them do not comprehend how the Exclusionary Rule which ensures this right is guarded. The Exclusionary Rule is intended to refrain the police from misconduct. The 4th amendment right protects every citizen from illegal searches and arrests. When the police violates this 4 amendment right, the evidence they have collected will be avoided in the federal court.