For all the people friends, Family, I thought I would share my research paper after now that it has been finalized and turned in. I am proud of said paper. Please enjoy! This was for the Constitutional Law course at Rasmussen College and is based on the 4th Amendment. Intro: The year is 1776, and United States is on the brink of war on the door you hear a knocking, you a rise to see who it is but before you can get to open it a British soldier bursts in with a muzzle pointed directly into your face. Instinctively you place your hands in the air and place your body between you and your family. Two other soldiers come into your household and look around seeing if you are hiding anything, or anyone. Not finding anything they presumptuously sit down at your table which you had just worked to place for your family and gorge themselves on your dinner. Taking their leave you are left there with your family and kids hungry and ready for your country to stand and fight for its freedom so you do not have to worry about seizures like this ever again. Thesis: The Bill of Rights, the one thing in the Constitution of the United States that creates the foundations to our basic freedoms; these rights are laid out so that we might have as our forefathers said, “The Inalienable rights, in which include to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” When we look out our rights to liberty we find that the Fourth Amendment in particular could not be truer when it comes to laying down the cornerstone on the Constitutional foundation. Projecting the fundamentals of the Fourth Amendment is important because without understanding this we might not have the understanding to what we are privileged to as a United States citizen. With this being said we will look at the Fourth Amendment in detail as it pertains to a specific case in 1971 where the United States looked at the need for a warrant when it came to wiretapping. This case is important because with all of the changes we have in technology in this era we find that many of the similarities apply. When it comes to the aspects of law enforcement and corrections we will see how this amendment affects our justice system every day, by incorporating the fundamentals of this case. Body: To quote the Fourth Amendment we find that it is written: “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.” (Walenta, 2010) When we break it apart we can find that the context of the statement is written in two parts, to be precise clauses, the first clause being the seizure clause, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” (Walenta, 2010) This means the government has been given an ultimatum of what is acceptable in stopping a person and what is not. The second is the warrant clause, “No Warrants shall issue, but on probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons to be seized.” (Walenta, 2010) “Many circumstances exist in which law enforcement may dispense with the requirement to secure a warrant, so long as their conduct is otherwise objectively reasonable. For example, they may conduct a search when exigent circumstances demand it.” (The Heritage Foundation, 2013) . Specific examples of when the warrant was deemed unnecessary to perform a search were: 1. Mincey versus Arizona (1978) (The Heritage Foundation, 2013) 2. Horton versus California (1990) (The Heritage Foundation, 2013) 3. Donovan versus Dewey (1981). (The Heritage Foundation, 2013) While each of them had a different reason for court the timeframe for searching was essential that the officers do it then and there. Also a case where a warrant maybe over looked is shown in the case of Indianapolis versus Edmond (2000). (The Heritage Foundation, 2013). In the following case during Type of Case: This case deals with the admissions of recordings without the suspect’s knowledge, and whether or not it is a violation of the suspect’s Fourth Amendment. Facts of the Case: White had been convicted for illegal drug use and sales, and when he admitted this to a friend who was also the reporting officer, who so happened to be recording it. This was seen by White as a violation of the Fourth Amendment by the case of Katz versus the United States and the United States Court of Appeals saw it as well. Legal Issue: Was the recording of the conversation between the officer and White a violation of White’s Fourth Amendment? Holding and Decision: No. Under the previous case of Hoffa versus the United States, White did not have reasonable expectation of privacy when questioning officer who had the conversation in private had the conversation recorded to be used. Rule: The recording was admissible as evidence and was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the decision from the appeals court was overturned. Due to the fact White took the chance and told the other officer, he took the chance and admitted guilt. Amendment Controversy: With looking at the past and the present we find that there are similarities in the theories on how warrants should be applied to the privacy of technology. In the following with the State of Washington versus Jonathan Roden we find that difference and similarity. In this case there is the debate on whether or not text messages are protected by the same code and require a warrant. The argument was debated in the case that the officer had intercepted Lee’s, (the drug dealer to Roden) phone without permission or a warrant, then proceeded to have a full out conversation with Mr. Roden regarding a time and a place where the “next deal” was to happen. In this manner the sting was made and Mr. Roden was placed under arrest. The dilemma with this is the courts could debate two aspects and this is why this is a case of the Fourth Amendment and where one can find some major controversy, this case is dealing with the similar Wiretap case in White versus the United States. The problem is that Roden had admitted on a cellphone to an unknown entity, that there was a place, time are amount he wanted and that was all he needed. The state’s argument was that Roden took the chance in saying what he did that it could have been intercepted and picked up by anyone. Similar to the United States versus White, and White taking the chance that his friend was wired and still admitting everything to the friend. The correlation is here in the fact they are using the same situation in two cases. The other argument was Roden’s lawyer who debated the case was unconstitutional to have the text messages admitted, in the court. The Supreme Court of Washington had previously defined the case of what interception had meant. The Supreme Court of Washington didn’t see the case till recently in 2013. This leads to the largest point of the controversy is where does privacy end where technology begins? Personal Take on the Situation: Looking from a singular point of view I find that we are going to have to make a decision if we would like to keep our technology going at the pace we have. We often find that when we make decisions we also have to face the consequences and responsibilities that come with those decisions. With the expansion of the internet we have made ourselves open to those of us who enjoy the pain of others and with that being said the internet is an open stream, and the privacy is not as secure as one would think. In studying cyber security one will find that the people that actually invade your privacy there are not the law enforcement but the criminals themselves, and if it means one needs to give up a word or two to catch a virus writer, rest assured most people would do it in a heartbeat. So with this being said when it comes to the person writing the viruses, and preforming the cybercrime they are willingly taking a risk attacking or marking a specific computer, just like White did talking to his friend who was wired. Conclusion: Lastly, to restate the facts the Fourth Amendment is a beautiful amendment while it seems to phase out we find that while there is some fault on the side of the law enforcement, we can always look at the three fingers pointing back at us for the decisions we have made in allowing the technology to progress so much. “As we have welcomed the internet into the house so have we welcomed back the day to the soldiers eating at our table, as with the internet they have access to the money you have earned for the food you have put on the table. Have we not yet learned History will always repeat itself?” The Author. Bibliography Constitutional Rights Foundation. (2002). Mayflower Compact . Retrieved from Constitutional Rights Foundation: crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/mayflower-compact.html#.UWgl2FdIopE EFF. (2011). Washington state text message privacy cases. Retrieved from EFF: https://eff.org/cases/washington-state-text-message-privacy-cases (2012). Legal Issues in Information Security. In J. L. Grama, Legal Issues in Information Security. Jones and Bartlett, LLC. Harr, J. S., & Hess, K. M. (2007). Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, Fourth ed. . Clifton Park, NY: Cengage Learning. Lillian Goldman Law Library. (2008). Constitution of the United States The Bill of Rights. Retrieved from Yale: ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html#7 The Heritage Foundation. (2013). Searches and Seizures. Retrieved from The Heritage Foundation: heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/4/essays/144/searches-and-seizures The Heritage Foundation. (2013). Warrant Clause. Retrieved from Heritage Guide to the Constitution: heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/4/essays/145/warrant-clause United States Government. (2013). Preamble. Retrieved from Cornell University Law School: law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble Univeristy Cornell Law. (2007, December 12). Preamble. Retrieved from Legal Information Institute: law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble Walenta, C. (2010). Fourth Amendment. Retrieved from Legal Dictionary: legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary/Fourth+Amendment Washington State Supreme Court. (2013, May 7). Washington State Supreme Court. Retrieved from TWV: tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013050008B
Posted on: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 19:45:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015