The Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule The Constitution of the United States was written to give its citizens certain rights and protections. One protection is the one granted by the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This is meant to keep government officials from harassing citizens for no reason. There were times when the police in many cases did search citizens illegally and used the evidence to convict. Actions such as these led to the Exclusionary Rules creation by the United States Supreme Court.
Although “ ‘searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable,’ ” Brigham City v. Stuart , 547 U. S. 398 , this presumption may be overcome when “ ‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment ,” Mincey v. Arizona , 437 U. S. 385 . One such exigency is the need “to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.” Brigham City, supra, at 403. Pp. 5–6. (b) Under the “police-created exigency” doctrine, which lower courts have developed as an exception to the exigent circumstances rule, exigent circumstances do not justify a warrantless search when the exigency was “created” or “manufactured” by the conduct of the police.
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
Evidence seized by private parties is not excluded from trial if the search was not in the direction of law enforcement officers. If a criminal defendant testifies in his or her own defense, illegally seized evidence may be used to impeach the defendant’s testimony. Evidence seized in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights may be used in Grand Jury proceedings and civil proceedings. In a grand jury proceeding, illegally seized evidence may not be used if it was obtained in violation of the federal government. In the case of United States v. Herring, the officer arrested the defendant without a proper arrest warrant.
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.
→Court said examiner does not act as counsel, but as fact-finder. →Court says P has due process rights; didn’t USE subpoena power to cross examine witness. **Lesson is due process is really only about opportunity to participate. →Differed from Wong case because it was NOT an adversarial proceeding; fact finding body not dealing with adversarial claims, so examiner roles were not in conflict. →**take home: If you want to make a due process claim, need to make the argument that it is an adversarial proceeding wherein prosecutorial and judicial roles are being conflated.
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.
How can search and seizure pose a concern for private security? For one reason, security officials do not have the same authority as law enforcement. I don’t believe that security officers have the power to search individuals or property at any time. Security firms have to be extremely cautious about getting a law suit for violating a person’s right. Therefore, this poses a major concern for security firms.
If the FCC and other US government agencies considered that this radiation had no affect on health, why are the use and safety of cell phones being questioned? As a major cell phone user, the safety of using cell phones should be a concern of mine. Learning that it causes no real negative health affects has made it no longer a big problem. If the safety was such a big deal why haven’t this same proposition been brought forward about the use of televisions, radios, and laptops, because they all use the same type of radiation that is produced by cell phones. The only real safety issue that seems to be a concern to people is the fact that it may cause cancer.
If confidential data is shared publicly this could cause an individual’s self-esteem to decrease dramatically therefore the implementation of the data protection act in organisations is essential so this does not take place. The health sector handles some of the most sensitive personal data, and patients have the right to expect that information will be looked after. It is important that all cases of discrimination which occur in health, public health and adult social care services are reported at the earliest opportunity, and are handled effectively. The Date Protection Act ensures that these types of discriminatory practices don’t take place by making it illegal for organisations to reveal any of the sensitive data they keep to anybody else. This prevents infringement of rights as it is a person’s human rights to have their data protected at all times.