Using A Warrant Should Not Be Allowed Essay

The simplest and most common type of warrantless searches are searches based upon consent. [1] No warrant or probable cause is required to perform a search if a person with the proper authority consents to a search. [2] A consent search requires the person being searched to freely and voluntarily waive their Fourth Amendment rights, granting the officer permission to perform the

No one should be searched without a good reason and warrant. People should have the right of privacy- it is important to them. It is ethical for police to have search warrants before searching a person’s personal belongings. There have been recent conflicts on police powers over the pass years. Police are disobeying the fourth amendment by searching illegally. Critics frown upon police, while supporters agree with the police. Being searched without a permit is unconstitutional, and police could take advantage of their power, and abuse it. It makes US citizens feel less secure and safe. Citizens need to be guaranteed rights as long as they behave.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss public school districts' limits on "hate" speech and

The Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights ensures Americans the right to be secure in their homes from government intrusion. Essentially, an officer cannot enter the place of residence of an individual without probable cause or a search warrant. However, with the advances in technology, the government is able to use GPS technology to gain information on certain criminal prospects without probable cause. This is considered unlawful in regards to what the Fourth Amendment stands for. Even under the current law, it still comes to the matter of question if this type of scrutiny was done in a public or private area. However, the Supreme Court issued a statement that devices that contain GPS tracking capabilities are acceptable on a public

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” Sound familiar? Well it should. That quote was a section of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Those lines are one of the many things that set America apart from other countries around the world. It has protected us for centuries from “unreasonable searches and seizures…” made by anyone, including the government. This is all beginning to change with the inventions of the smartphone, computer, and even GPS. These inventions have possibly turned our world for the better, or maybe even for the worse.

Nicholas Carr uses his article “Tracking is an Assault on Liberty, With Real Dangers” to explain the dangers of tracking on internet users by using real life examples. The first example that Carr uses is about a man named Tom Owad, who found

Researchers stated that any government officials or law enforcement officers must provide a warrant signed by the court to perform a search on a suspect home, business, or vehicle. Jones case was more persuasive in his argument due to the fact that the law enforcement failed to obtain approval warrant before proceeding a tracking device on the suspect. Jones was violated from his privacy and it was placed without the consent of him. Justice Alito believed that the evolution of technology will eventually oversee people location, which draws a line between privacy and publicness. If the law enforcement officers had a probable cause on Jones’ actions that a crime is occurring, they would have used tried to obtain a warrant or try different methods that does not violate the

However state and federal judges across the country have made conflicting rulings on what standards are required for the government to obtain tracking information from cell phone companies. Then there should a be law that the government should need a warrant to access your cellphones records and obtain data from the cell phone proproviders.The federal government's position is that it should be able to get most of this data if it decides it is relevant to an investigation, with no need for a search warrant. But then where does our privacy stops how would we know we're safe and our personal business is not out

Several court cases, some dating back to the early 2000s, have been held over the tracking and/or seizure of cell phones by police authority. This has stirred up massive controversy due to the courts inconsistent rulings that seem to vary by state. This can be troublesome in many instances where a similar trial in two different states can have two different rulings, meaning there is no precedent rule or written mandate for such occasion. While cell phone technology in particular is becoming more and more of a utility for not just our personal but our public lives as well, the people are beginning to fight for their privacy through the use of their digital

The constitution has been the back bone of the United States legal system since it was first written and signed by our founding fathers. This document has been the topic of many heat debates and has gone through many changes and interpretations throughout the years. The forth amendment of the constitution is one of the most debated amendments. This is the amendment that covers the area of search and seizure as well as privacy. 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 place to be

To track somebody, you need to have the collaboration of the cellular providers and a code to have access to the person’s phone, texts and emails. This matter of “security” is just a way to take out people’s privacies and freedom of speech. It is ok that companies such as NSA, CIA, among others, are tracking everybody without legal permission? Really the answer is NO because no one has the right to get into anybody’s personal life.

In United States v. Jones, the Court determined it was a “search under the Fourth Amendment” when an FBI task force attached a GPS tracker, for a four-week period, to a suspected drug dealer’s vehicle for surveillance purposes and thus used the GPS tracker to learn the defendant’s “totality and pattern of his movements”. It should be noted however, the Court came to their conclusion based upon a theory of trespass, that is, the act of placing the GPS tracker on the defendant’s vehicle. “The Court acknowledged that extended electronic surveillance “without an accompanying trespass” may be unconstitutional, but noted that the “present case does not require us to answer that question.””

The events that I have chosen to write about is deaths that happen during no knock search warrants1 and drug raids. All over the U.S there are civilians and law enforcement dying because of the way that they are choosing to execute these warrants. I feel that there are better ways of conducting a search warrant, detaining the person or persons outside of the home and then entering. If someone was coming into my home by the way of breaking down my door or windows, I would not think twice to defend myself or protect my children. Also, I found it interesting that SWAT isn’t required to keep track of data that include injury’s or death that might occur during raids.

“Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty” is an essay written by Nicholas Carr in 2010 in the Wall Street Journal. He said that there are chances that, “our personal data will fall into the wrong hands” (Carr 438). It means that people’s personal information might drop under the hands of hackers, data aggressors, and stalkers. In addition, Carr believes that “personal information may be used to influence our behavior and even our thoughts in ways that are invisible to us” (Carr 439). It means that the data aggressors misuse people’s information in opposite way or in a wrong way. For example, data aggressors steal the people’s personal information and use that information for their own benefits. Therefore, Carr believes that government should regulate the internet. Unlike Carr, Harper believes that people are responsible for their own information. They should be aware and concerned about potential dangers of posting their personal information on the internet. However, it’s people duty to be aware of its consequences before posting any of their personal

This gives organizations information that the user may not aware is being recorded and shared. Without knowing it, we are leaving “ electronic fingerprints” with every mouse click, every phone call, is recorded and used for analysis purposes, which tend to be justified through the idea that it is used to help protect civilians from terrorist or other threats. Though surveillance is used to protect society, it can go as far as to even control and monitor society. In countries like China, the government uses surveillance to censor what is available to the public, and therefore allows the leaders of the country to maintain a tighter grip on society.