The Impact Of Technological Surveillance On Human Surveillance

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

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 Court has ruled that the areas carved out which include exceptions to the basic tenets of the Fourth Amendment, commonly known as warrantless searches, may be

The defendant, Fremont Weeks, was convicted of using the mail system to allocate chances in lottery [considered gambling in Missouri] which was unlawful. The federal agents had searched the defendant’s house and seized evidence more than once without consent or a warrant (Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 1914).

The 4th amendment has been tested in the Supreme Court.”Police officers in Kansas City, Missouri went to the house of Mr. Fremont Weeks and used his hidden key to enter

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

In Randolph (2006) Justice Souter wrote in the majority opinion, "it is fair to say that a caller standing at the door of shared premises would have no confidence that one occupant's invitation was a sufficiently good reason to enter when a fellow tenant stood there saying, 'stay out.' Without some very good reason, no sensible person would go inside under those conditions." A police search in such circumstances, Souter wrote, would therefore not meet the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court consolidated two cases where the police gained entry into the defendants’ home without a search warrant and seized evidence found in the house. The rule of law as read out under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment posits that the United States Constitution has prohibited warrantless entry and search of a premise, absent the exigent circumstances, regardless the existence of a probable cause. The courts in Payton held that the Fourth Amendment made it a violation to enter a premise during an arrest absent an arrest warrant and exigent circumstances; a person’s house is a critical point to which the constitutional safeguards should be respected.

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

The silver platter doctrine was a doctrine that allowed evidence that had been illegally seized by state and local police into federal courts as long as they were not acting as federal law enforcement agents (Gray, Cooper, & McAloon, 2012). Therefore, as long as the individual obtaining the evidence was not acting as an agent of federal law enforcement, then the evidence would be allowed within a court case. The Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule did not apply to state officials at this time. It was only enforced on federal government officials who seized evidence illegally. Therefore, this practice went on for some time before it was reevaluated.

INTRODUCTION: In Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the question of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was brought before the court system. The case looked at the admissibility of evidence discovered during search and seizure, in particular, as it relates to street encounters and investigations between citizens and officers of the law. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the decision of the 5th Ohio Court of Appeals. This case was of particular importance it helped establish what type of search and seizure behavior was lawful and unlawful on the part of officers, and set clear guidelines. The rulings in this case pertain to the Fourteenth Amendment (Cornell University Law School, n.d.).

On October 31st, 1963, in Cleveland, Ohio, Officer Martin McFadden observed two men standing outside a storefront acting suspiciously. He watched one of the men walk down the street pausing to look in a store window. At the end of the street the man turned around and proceeded to walk back, pausing at the same store window as on his way down. Upon reaching the other man, the two mingled and talked to each other. Officer McFadden witnessed these men do this several times. Officer McFadden concerned the men were “casing a job”, then followed the two men, and watched as they met up in front of Zucker’s Store. At this point, Officer McFadden walked up to the men, identified himself as a police officer, and asked for their names. He asked the first man, Terry to turn around. He frisked him, and, feeling a pistol frame inside Terry 's overcoat, ordered the men into the store. Terry and Chilton were charged with possession of a concealed weapon, and were each sentenced to three-years in prison. The arrest of Terry set in motion a series of lower court cases that ultimately led to the landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The United States Supreme Court decided the case of Terry v. Ohio on June 10, 1968. The question that arises in the Terry v. Ohio case has to do with the Fourth Amendment, specifically the line "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against

Government surveillance in the past was not a big threat due to the limitations on technology; however, in the current day, it has become an immense power for the government. Taylor, author of a book on Electronic Surveillance supports, "A generation ago, when records were tucked away on paper in manila folders, there was some assurance that such information wouldn 't be spread everywhere. Now, however, our life stories are available at the push of a button" (Taylor 111). With more and more Americans logging into social media cites and using text-messaging devices, the more providers of metadata the government has. In her journal “The Virtuous Spy: Privacy as an Ethical Limit”, Anita L. Allen, an expert on privacy law, writes, “Contemporary technologies of data collection make secret, privacy invading surveillance easy and nearly irresistible. For every technology of confidential personal communication…there are one or more counter-technologies of eavesdropping” (Allen 1). Being in the middle of the Digital Age, we have to be much more careful of the kinds of information we put in our digital devices.

Thesis statement: Government surveillance should be stopped because it is an invasion of privacy and gives the government control that is not enumerated in the constitution.

In 1960, the Rule had reached the states. In Elkins v. United States6, states officials that obtain evidence illegally were allowed to turn over evidence to federal officials and the evidence could be entered for trial. In Herring v. United States, 2009 7, was a matter of a clerical mistake where the accused was arrested prior to the clerical mistake was updated. It was found that the exception to the Exclusionary Rule did not apply because this was not a case of deliberate misconduct. The officer acted in good faith, the conduct was not deliberate, reckless, or negligent. The arrest was based on basic police mistake that were not a repeated pattern of misconduct. The rule could not be used to suppress evidence. These were known as the Silver Aerial surveillance is also an exception of the Exclusionary Rule. This exception, which was derived from two 1986 cases, California v. Ciraola and Chemical Company v. United States, states that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Areas of the private home or business are not protected from investigation even if the areas are out of public view. The foreign soil exception states that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure