The fourth amendment prohibits, "unreasonable searches and seizures", and protects citizens' privacy within reasonable measures. Now, how does this tie into modern technology, and should the use of this information be considered a violation of people's constitutional right to privacy? Police should not be able to obtain information stored by personal devices or their carriers, as the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees privacy to the United States citizens. In that case that the authorities were to use information from a person's personal device without a proper warrant, they would be in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment was established in order to protect the privacies of the United States
This requires that the defendant knowingly and intentionally posses the controlled substance, and that the defendant intend to distribute it. (MBAH 22) HOLDING: No REASONING: These facts alone are not enough to establish constructive possession. These were the only facts relevant to Clive’s case, and thus the evidence presented at trial, without anything more, is not sufficient to warrant his conviction. There was other evidence pertaining to Gary, however, which was sufficient to establish constructive possession. Gary had marijuana paraphernalia in what was presumably his bedroom.
Checkpoint: Terrorism and cyber crime The fourth amendment is to protect the people from search and seizure, which mean that it protects a person from being arrested or from being search with out the proper evidence of the crime committed. With terrorism I do not see how the fourth amendment could be interpreted, unless a person or people try to terrorize an area, and there is no proof that they did it or not. The government can not just go and search there premises or arrest then without the proper evidence. With cyber crimes and the fourth amendment is also difficult to interpret, since with cyber crimes officers need to invade the privacy of the other persons just to be able to catch a person committing a crime on line, for instance a police officer pretending to act as a under age child to catch a perpetrator. In these case there needs to be some boundaries on invading a persons privacy and being able to search there home, or any personal belongings and if they have wire tap a conversation to receive probable cause of a crime of these severity then it has to be done.
Government officials keep creating laws that tend to slow down the process of owning a handgun, but it doesn’t solve the issue that crime still exists in this country. In order to commit a crime, owning a handgun isn’t truly necessary; anyone can commit it with any blunt object. The issue regarding crime will never be resolved no matter how many laws the government throws at it. Banning handguns will be almost like banning
The Patriot Act was ultimately supposed to protect Americans from terrorism by giving the government more power. According to the ACLU, the Act contained many flaws. It gave law enforcement freedom to search homes with only suspicions of terrorism, with no warrant involved. Not only did the government not have a warrant but gave no warning either before nor after the searches. It also gave the government the right to medical and tax records as well as the books bought and borrowed by Americans.
We should be able to say whatever it is that we want. Even back then they shouldn't be able to put somebody into jail for saying a negative comment about the government or even a leader. They should have had the right to say what they wanted to and to express the way that they felt about it. The Patriot Act was passed for much the same reason as the Alien and Sedition Acts. It was made law in our response to the fear of terrorism caused by the events of 9/11.
According to O’Connor (2009) “The USA Patriot Act, for example, violates the First Amendment’s free speech guarantees by barring those who have been subject to search orders from telling anyone about those orders, even in situations where no need for secrecy can be proven. It also authorizes the FBI to investigate citizens who choose to exercise their freedom of speech with no need to prove that any parts of their speech might be labeled illegal”. I think if someone says something that would cause the FBI to investigate it than there must be something behind it. I don’t think the FBI would intentionally waste their own time investigating an
XXXX XXXXXX Dr. Faust English 1010-52 10 December 2012 Guns Do Not Kill People The Constitution states that we have the right to keep and bare arms, but some people have decided that is not an American right. They will do whatever it takes to change Amendment 2. There is an anonymous quote that is used by the NRA (national rifle association) to this day: “if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” No more gun laws should be passed because: laws do not keep guns away from criminals, guns are an effective way of self-defense, and guns are safe if taught how to used properly. Gun laws do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. All they do is leave law abiding citizens completely defenseless against robberies burglaries and any random shooting of a mad man.
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.
Schneier shows this to prove that doing nothing can lead to trouble with blackmail or abuse with surveillance information. Schneier says that “that privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we’re doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance” (paragraph 5). This is a strong point of his argument because he wants the people to know that the government can find a way to change nothing into something. The only flaw of Schneier’s argument is that his facts are repeated and this doesn’t help because without more facts there isn’t any proof to show that the people of privacy don’t need to have constant surveillance. Now if we look to the other side we can find many aspects of what Cillizza has to say about security.