Does The Patriot Act Protect The Fourth Amendment Of The Constitution?

The government is always watching to ensure safety of their country, including everything and everyone in it. Camera surveillance has become an accepted and almost expected addition to modern safety and crime prevention (“Where” para 1). Many people willingly give authorization to companies like Google and Facebook to make billions selling their personal preferences, interests, and data. Canada participates with the United States and other countries in monitoring national and even global communications (“Where” para 2). Many question the usefulness of this kind of surveillance (Hier, Let, and Walby 1).However, surveillance, used non-discriminatorily, is, arguably, the key technology to preventing terrorist plots (Eijkman 1). Government

There are circumstances where people find warrants unconstitutional, but the fourth amendment is ethical through its probable cause, guaranteed privacy, and search warrants. Privacy to citizens makes them feel comfortable and protected. Without the fourth amendment privacy would be unavailable, the citizens of america wouldn’t feel very

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. (People v. Williams 20 Cal.4th 125.) A defendant may move to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. (Penal Code §1538.5(a)(1)(A).) Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 119; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (stating searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable unless subject to an established exception).) While the defendant has the initial burden of raising the warrantless search issue before the court, this burden is satisfied when the defendant asserts the absence of a warrant and makes a prima facie case in support. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 130.) Accordingly, when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence seized during a warrantless search, they also bear the burden in showing that an exception to the warrant applies. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 98 S.Ct. 2408; see also People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99.) Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should be suppressed. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 372 (stating unreasonable searches are invalid under Terry and should be suppressed).)

“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” (www.law.cornell.edu).

With good intentions, the Patriot Act allows the government to pry into Americans' lives through computer and phone records as well as credit and banking history (Source 5). This oversteps the U.S. Constitution as the First and Fourth Amendment were created to give citizens freedom and the right to deny search and seizure

Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures of certain papers, books, documents etc. Rules are not violated in it. There must be probable reason because in order to arrest a particular person without a search warrant. It possesses an oath or affirmation from the government. It has two fundamental rights as Right to privacy and Right to freedom. Search occurs when it has a correct reason that was obligated by the government people. Private individuals are violated from this amendment. A seizure happens the owner must has a right documents with him on his own property, if not the documents is seized and the person gets arrested. Sometimes the property belongs to other possessor but in mistake reasonable person gets involved in the task. The banning of unreasonable searches can violate many things to be happen.

The fourth amendment was created to protect the individual rights form governmental intrusion. The fourth amendment protects the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. This shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue unless it is upon probable cause. It was established on December 15, 1791 during the colonial era. When the 4th Amendment became part of the Constitution, it was originally only applied to the federal government. Then it was applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The fourth amendment is so important to American, because it is the natural right of the people and the protection from intrusion. Now in society many people do not understand that the

In 1928, the United States Supreme Court approved the practice of wiretapping for the police and other government officials, though some states have banned it. (Harris, 2017) Wiretapping is regulated by both the state and federal governments and, if illegal, can be punished by criminal sanctions. When an officer observes unusual conduct which leads to reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, the officer may make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions.

The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which was established in the seventeenth and eighteenth century English common law. Aside from the rest of the amendments in the Bill of Rights the Fourth Amendment can be traced back to a strong public reaction from some cases back in the 1760s. Two of these cases happened in England and one case happened in the colonies. These cases involved some pamphleteers who would pass out pamphlets to the public in order to spread their word around. These pamphlets however ridiculed the king and his ministers. After finding this out the king issued warrants to have the pamphleteer’s homes ransacked and stripped of all their books and papers. Even back then the pamphleteers knew that their rights

The position held by those who disagree with my view would believe that the Patriot Act is a complete and total violation of Americans rights. They would believe that this is a violation of the fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments. The act allows the government to get around the Fourth Amendment by allowing them to track who visits which website, and read private emails. (Johnson) Specifically, critics say that this act makes it a lot easier for the federal government to many things, such as obtain information about people, and eavesdrop on telephone conversations. Soon after the Patriot Act was accepted, many people voiced their differing opinions of it. People in civil liberties groups believed that the act took too much freedom away from the people. They believed it violated the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments. The 4th amendment states that searches and seizures can only take place

S.N. Herman in his article The US PATRIOT ACT and the Submajoritarian Fourth Amendment that was published in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review in 2006 deals completely around violations of the US Patriot Act in regards to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It brings forth the facts that support that we as American citizens have allowed the government to chip away at our rights to be free from unreasonable searches and

A few months ago, Edward Snowden leaked confidential information about a NSA surveillance program known as PRISM. NSA agents have been recording and listening to our phone calls, reading our text messages and emails, and archiving our activities. There has been controversy about whether it is a violation of our privacy right. There has been a lot of talk about abuse of this program. Journalists have been the primary target of this unauthorized surveillance according to some report. I intend to find out if there is any abuse of this program, and also whether it violates our fourth amendment right or not.

I strongly believe that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional; hence, I would say the government is acting illegally. Further, the book notes that the NSA put gag orders on several companies to prevent them from sharing their policies and procedures. The book also notes that even after certain laws and court cases ruled wiretapping illegal, law enforcement still did it. In my opinion, government surveillance and intrusion into personal data with a warrant is neither legal nor ethical.

The Patriot Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001 by President George W. Bush. The act expanded the surveillance capability of both domestic law enforcement and international intelligence agencies. When this law was passed it was under the assumption “to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes” (The USA Patriot). The Patriot Act has given the government the power to spy on the average American through monitoring phone records and calls, gaining banking and credit information, and even track a person’s internet activity. This is an unbelievable amount of power intelligence agencies wield all under the umbrella of national security. This power has gone too far, is unjustified, unconstitutional, and infringes on the privacy of the

The Patriot Act, an act passed by Congress in 2001 that addressed the topic of privacy in terrorist or radical situations, is controversial in today's society. Although it helps with protection against terroristic events, The Patriot Act is not fair, nor is it constitutional, because it allows the government to intrude on citizens' privacy, it gives governmental individuals too much power, and because the act is invasive to the 4th amendment right. To further describe key points in the act, it states that it allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking, and it allows law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant anywhere a terrorist-related activity occurred.