This was then said to be justified because the car was on public streets so the fourth amendment doesn’t apply. The court of appeals denied the argument implying that you can’t track a person’s movements for an extensive amount of time, because the government would gather more information about your everyday life, then just the location of the car. The Constitution is potentially violated in this case because the use of privacy-invading technologies. Providing the courts with all the evidence reveals this case as an unconstitutional search. This illustrates the conflict between the freedom of individual privacy and the order from the government’s political values.
The Destruction of the American Freedom An instruction memo, discarded by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) states, “under certain circumstances, the FBI has the ability to bend or suspend the law and impinge upon the freedom of others”. Federal counter-terrorism agencies like FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) protect citizens and the constitution of the United States of America.. However, what happens when these agencies stop believing in the laws they are to enforce? In the novel, Little Brother by Cory Doctorow, the DHS, turns San Francisco into a police state and break the law they are to preserve. The DHS is so determined to protect society from terrorism that ultimately they destroy the freedom that they are striving to protect.
Dollree was arrested for the possession of lewd and lascivious books under the Ohio Revised Code 2905.34-.35 (The Cleveland Memory Project). However, they could not convict her due to her fourth amendment right which 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…” (Bill of Rights Transcript Text). This case was important in defining the use of the “exclusionary rule”. When the Cleveland Police Department received an anonymous phone tip of the whereabouts of Virgil Ogletree, a suspect in the bombing, they were headed straight to the Mapp resident. Officers from the Cleveland Bureau of Special Investigation Sergeant Carl I. Deleau, Officer Thomas J. Dever, and Officer Micheal J. Haney surrounded Dollree’s home and requested entry.
The LAPD violated the 4th Amendment when they searched O.J’s house without a search warrant. People believed that they did this in order to take action immediately and plant evidence which would help convict O.J. Mark Fuhrman, the head detective at LAPD in charge of the investigation, was questioned about the planting of evidence at O.J’s residence, pleading the 5th Amendment. In other words, he refused to respond to the questions given to him and chose to exercise his constitutional right to not speak. As an addition to O.J’s defense, Simpson's attorneys questioned Fuhrman about his alleged prior use of racist terms.
One of the major points against gun control is the violation of your second amendment rights, you have the right to keep and bear arms for personal protection. This paper will show there is no common sense in banning all firearms as a means gun control and it leaves law abiding citizens increasingly vulnerable to violent crimes. No Common Sense in Gun Control Over the past forty years, legislators have spent a lot of time, effort and revenue on legislation regarding gun control. Gun control advocates insist that increased gun control will lower the soaring crime rates of the early 70's. However, “recent research on the prevalence of defensive gun use has prompted growing concern that government efforts to regulate gun ownership and use may be counterproductive” (Ludwig, 2000, p. 363).
According to Larry Greenemeier, a recent court case, Carpenter V. United States "specifically pits the privacy of information that wireless devices share with their service providers-the towers or " cell sites" devices connect to, the phone numbers they call and answer, and the time and length of those calls-against law enforcement's authority to retrieve that data without a warrant." However, the FBI issued court orders under the 1986 SCA in order to compel carriers to turn that information over to the FBI. This would be acceptable despite the fact that a warrant requires more reasoning to receive. If they felt strongly enough that they had reason to obtain certain information, they should have to convince a judge to see the situation from the same point of view. “ 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.
Also with the France, Britain and USA not agreeing on the terms of the treaty made it even harder for it to end. Germany’s anger from the treaty came from a few of conditions which one wasn’t entirely true. The first of these conditions were that they were to blame for the war, this condition so bad that no man in Germany would sign it not even a soldier under direct orders. Also the amount of money that Germany had to pay back was very unrealistic ($6600 million) and would cripple their country for years to come. There were other factors that Germany thought that were very unfair such as their tiny army and the amount of land that was taken from them.
Based on (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury 2009, pp. 97), there are three things which are immoral Ford Pinto has done. Firstly, Ford denied the facts that Pinto is unsafe, which is misleading the public. Secondly, the company declare that the Pinto model pass the government’s safety standards where it is not true. Another thing is that the company hides the fact where they have successfully lobbying the standards having it to be delayed for seven years, which means in between these years the customer will be risking their lives driving on such cars.
Privacy invaded? Ever since the NSA, National Security Agency, has started to track and scan citizen’s private phone calls and electronic messages people have been concerned about the privacy of their technology, they feel that it is a violation to their fourth amendment. People being watched and spied on for only a reason of suspicion; is a violation because the citizens have the right to a reasonable search and seizures. Therefore, I do not agree with the government unreasonably spying. The fourth amendment states guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Facial Recognition Technology Kamala Buck Strayer University Information Technology in Criminal Justice – CIS170 December 11, 2011 Dr. John Dorociak Facial recognition technology You’re being lied to right now. Don’t believe what this man tells you. “ This may be the officer’s intuition alarm that went off when encountering a subject with no identification. When asked for the subject’s name, he said Edward Neal, however you fell that something that he just said is not right. Now it is time for you to earthier believe his story or take MR Neal down to the station to find out who he really is.