The courts and laws have understood these documents throughout history. Below are three examples of Supreme Court cases related to civil liberties. 1. U.S. v. Jones: The facts of this case are dealing with government putting a GPS (tracking device) on the defendant's car, without a search warrant, tracking his movements for a month. This was then said to be justified because the car was on public streets so the fourth amendment doesn’t apply.
The court rejected the Government’s suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply where evidence is seized in reasonable good-faith reliance on a search warrant. Procedural History: In August 1981, acting on a tip from a confidential informant, officers of the Burbank Police Department began an extensive investigation by surveillance at Respondents’ residences involving drug-trafficking. Respondents Armando Sanchez and Patsy Stewart were identified to be selling large quantities of cocaine and methaqualone from their residence. A check of one of the individuals, Richardo Del Castillo, led officers to Respondent Alberto Leon who had prior arrests for drug charges and was heavily involved in the importation of drugs into this country. Based off of the police officers’ observations and activities at their homes, Officer Cyril Rombach, an experienced, narcotics investigator, prepared an affidavit for a warrant
When Marcus is held by the SFPD officers helping the DHS and asks if they track everyone with a funny ride history, the police officer replies, “we get an alert when anyone with an uncommon ride profile comes out and that helps us assess whether we want to investigate” (Doctorow 106). However this is a very ineffective technique as these anomalies can be caused by spontaneous or emergency situations. The Congress, in regards to this, passes PATRIOT Act II which allows the DHS to monitor the activities of debit and credit card owners. The Turk says “I move here twenty years ago for freedom-I no help them take freedom
The exclusionary rule has typically been utilized to stop prosecutors and law enforcement from unlawfully collecting evidence. Evidence collected because of illegal evidence may be thrown out. For the more than 100 years after the Fourth Amendment was ratified, it held very little weight because any evidence that was obtained by law enforcement through an infringement of search and seizure requirements was still permissible throughout the defendant's trial. The Fourth Amendment law was changed significantly when the Supreme Court made its decision in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914). The Weeks case pertained to an appeal by a defendant who was convicted of transporting lottery tickets through the mail.
- cert was granted ISSUE: - Did the FBI violated Katz 4th Amendment Right? (to privacy) HOLDING: - Yes REASONING: - The phone booth should be considered protected when doors are shut but the 4th amend. protects persons not places from unreasonable intrusion. In a public place, a person can have that reasonable expectation (but isn't protected because of plain view) Since the government was electronically listening and recording the conversation, it is constituted as a search & seizure. Under the 4th amend., the absence of a warrant during a search & seizure (they had probable cause as well) evidence should of been inadmissible.
Grass was indicted by a federal grand jury two years ago. On the eve of trial that was to start last June he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud Rite Aid and its shareholders and conspiracy to obstruct justice, in a deal that required him to cooperate with prosecutors. He reached a plea deal that called for up to eight years in prison, but Rambo refused to go along with it. A new deal called for him to serve up to 10 years in prison for conspiring to defraud and obstruct justice. At the time of his plea, prosecutors said Grass admitted to a series of illegal activities, from backdating contracts and severance letters to misleading the company and federal investigators about a $2.6 million real estate deal.
His statement was “In my training experience this guy had I’m a gang member written all over him” (pbs.org). During the investigation it was discovered that Gaines was connected to a rap label called Death Row records that was owned by Marion “Suge” Knight. It was found that Knight was hiring off duty police officers to work as security guards. There were three investigations into the shooting of Officer Gaines. Lyga was absolved of the shooting.
And although Savant makes a persuasive argument, he fails to tell both sides of illegal immigration. Both the good and bad. In his article “Imagining the Immigrant” writer John J. Savant give his opinion on the topic of immigration. Savant starts by giving examples of detectives and therapist, and how they must put themselves into other people’s shoes; metaphorically speaking, and use their imagination to fully understand a situation. “Imagination… can lead to moral clarification.”(1) Savant believes that we must try to imagine why an illegal immigrant chooses to come illegally before we make a judgment call.
Brook Antonio GEC 100/ Sharon Corbin W3D1 Article Analysis My first article is titled "Jay-z can fight racial profiling in retail." It's an article written from a commentary stand point by Roxanne Jones; former ESPN president, and co-author of "Say It Loud: An Illustrated History of the Black Athlete." Roxanne Jones is expressing her opinions related to rapper Jay-Z's affiliation to the luxury store Barney's. Barney's is in the middle of a racial profiling lawsuit. Roxanne states, “two Barney’s customers, Trayon Christian and Kayla Phillips, said last week that they were racially profiled and detained by police after making expensive purchases."
“ Without a warrant, but with the SCA court order in hand-the FBI compelled MetroPCS to provide about four months of location records for a smartphone owned by suspect Timothy Ivory Carpenter.” Based off of the information the authorities had previously, it would not have been hard to convince a judge to issue them a warrant. If authorities truly have reasonable examples of why the information is needed, then they should receive a warrant. If they cannot give acceptable reasons to obtain data, then they have no right to do so due to the fact that judges do not see it fit. Without a