Secretly placing a GPS on a car or monitoring a mans movement for long periods of time constitutes a government “search”, and therefore the mans constitutional rights were violated. They were also trying to determine whether movement in a private vehicle on city streets is "public" in nature. This just seems like they are trying to find justification in what they are doing and trying to make it seem like it is not an invasion of privacy. http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/justice/scotus-gps-tracking 8. An Erie, Pennsylvania, public indecency ordinance prohibited knowingly or intentionally appearing in public in a “state of nudity.” Pap’s, the owners of Kandyland, an Erie establishment featuring
Michael Lynch Prof. Kenneth O’Keefe CJUS 3550-01 Computer Security and Law November 2nd, 2012 CCTV Traffic Enforcement In today’s world it seems almost impossible for society to function without technology. The world seems to act if though it would divert back to the stone ages if it had managed to lose its digital and satellite savvy connections. People just would not know what to do with themselves or how to communicate, let alone know how to function as a law abiding citizen. In today’s technological age we teach citizens how to obey traffic laws and how to read traffic signs through online classes and computer based tests. We even have digital and computer ran traffic devices and that brings into question how does one monitor or
“For example, it makes little sense to require an officer to obtain a search warrant to seize contraband that is in plain view. Under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement, the appropriateness of every warrantless search is decided on a case-by-case basis, weighing the defendant's privacy interests against the reasonable needs of law enforcement under the circumstances” (G K. Hill, 2005). Another exception to warrant requirements as it pertains to the above article is that the video released shows there was a lack of physical harm as seen on George Zimmerman. This was important to the prosecution because Zimmerman claimed Trayvon Martin attacked him and his death was a result of self defense. In conclusion, authority’s base warrants on probable cause which are only necessary in a small percentage of cases.
Hudson was charged under Michigan law with unlawful drug and firearm possession. When police arrived to execute the warrant, they announced their presence, but waited only a short time perhaps “three to five seconds” before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson’s home. At trial Hudson argued that police violated the knock and announce requirement, therefore all the evidence stemming from the search warrant should be inadmissible. The Trial Judge granted the motion to suppress the evidence. On appeal, Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the motion to suppress.
Since Mapp and other significant decisions, innocent people have been subjected to fewer unconstitutional searches, not necessarily because the police fear the exclusion of evidence but because of the potential for civil liability, citizen complaints, and the like. The rules of law decided in Mapp v. Ohio relate to the relevant facts in the fact pattern based on the Fourth Amendment violation. Det. Quickdraw is a representative for the government, but he failed to uphold the law by not following the correct criminal procedure for search and seizure. In conclusion, if I were the judge ruling in this case, I could apply the exclusionary rule and any evidence that was obtained during the unlawful search would not be admissible.
Investigation: A person can have reasonable privacy even in a public place. In this case, the person utilizing the phone booth would expect reasonable privacy because they would not think that their conversation would be recorded regardless of the conversations that took place. Under the Fourth Amendment, the taping of the phone conversations constitutes the search even though the search was achieved without a warrant. Conclusion: The evidence such as the tapes were inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the conviction was overturned.
Essay #1 The article “Kyllo v. United States: Technology v. Individual Privacy” by Thomas D. Colbridge is to inform us about the balance between individuals privacy and the government enforcing laws to give safety to the public. It is about the use of thermal imaging technology by the police in the case of Kyllo which goes against his Fourth Amendment which protects him against unreasonable searches and seizures. Since the search was unreasonable and it was never defined in the constitution, it needs much more interpretation for the case. The Kyllo Case essentially is the use of thermal imaging law enforcement used to find out indoor marijuana growing operations in Kyllo’s property. But in the end when it reached the Supreme Court the third time and was ruled that Kyllo was indeed under the protection of the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure, but certain understandings of "reasonableness" have changed throughout U.S. history. If a vehicle search is conducted illegally, any evidence or information obtained by the search may not be used by the prosecution (this is referred to as the "exclusionary rule"). The line between lawful and unlawful vehicle searches can seem a bit blurry, and tends to get redefined frequently through the courts. When vehicle searches are legal is when an officer has consent to search from the driver, officer has probable cause to suspect the presence of incriminating evidence in the vehicle or if Officer reasonably believes that a vehicle search is necessary for his or her own protection (suspicion of a concealed weapon, for example). Other misdemeanors under state statute can automatically engage in a lawful search such as a DUI or other arrest able conditions.
With a law requiring that every gun be registered and require transfer of registration when privately sold, criminals would have a difficult time obtaining an untraceable firearm. Limits on ammunition purchases and ammunition held by an individual are not currently tracked leaving individuals an opportunity to stock pile or sell ammunition to others. A system to track ammunition purchases would allow the government to track purchases over time alerting the authorities to possible criminal activity. Setting limits on individual purchases of ammunition would also be a positive move in the gun control arena to prevent large purchases that could be a red flag for pending criminal activity.
The second issue is whether Joe Dullard's Fourth amendment right was violated. The IV amendment is “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.” In order to sue regarding an alleged Fourth Amendment violation, the plaintiff must have a legitimate expectation of privacy at the searched location. This expectation must meet both the subjective and objective tests of reasonableness. The subjective test requires the plaintiff to genuinely expect privacy, and the