I believe many of you would argue that the law enforcement didn’t need to get a search warrant in order to search DLK’s house, because DLK could easily destroy the evidence. However, you must see that it is very hard to completely obfuscate evidence inside a home, as a house cannot be “moved” unlike any automobile. According to Chief Justice William Howard Taft, “...and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile, … where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved…”. I bet all of us understand that although DLK could have tried to “cover up” the evidence, it would be certainly very hard to hide it completely (traces would
This essay will explain and analyze two essays by individuals who express entirely different opinions of civil disobedience. In his essay, “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy”, Lewis H. Van Dusen strongly discourages the use of civil disobedience as a means for change. He feels that this act of disobedience directly contradicts our democratic system. The other individual being compared in this essay is Henry David Thoreau; who in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, supports the act of peacefully challenging or protesting unjust laws. He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice.
This is done to prevent a terrorist from using a student status as a cover-up to allow admittance to this country with the intention to commit acts of terrorism. There are many different surveillance methods that the government uses to spy on terrorist suspects, including email, financial records, and store receipts. But, one of the most common methods of surveillance that the government uses is roving wiretaps. This is tapping into phone calls. “The government says roving wiretaps are needed to deal with technologically sophisticated terrorists.” (Abramson & Godoy) But, one of the negatives of wiretapping is that the government might make an excuse for using it to monitor terrorism with the real intention to spy on foreign
The government is in direct conflict with the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable search and seizure by government agencies. It also protects the rights of people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects. The amendment requires that a warrant with probable cause be signed by a judge before a search can be performed. But with the heightened search for terrorists, the system of checks and balances on the government has become gray and lax. There has been a loss of distinction between intelligence and criminal investigations which has resulted in the loss of the “probable cause” standard of the Forth Amendment.
David Gray CJUS 200 Application Essay 2-15-14 Can you seize the marijuana plants at that time? If yes, what is your legal justification for doing so? If no, what legally prohibits you from doing so? No, as a police officer you would not be able to seize the marijuana plants at this time, by doing so you would be violating the rights of the citizens of the house that was entered due to the noise ordinance. Actually, the fourth amendment would actually keep you from doing so because it states that “every citizen right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property –whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses”.
By doing this the government is invading the citizens privacy. Not only does everyone in America have the right to privacy but every human being that is a citizen to any country in the United Nations. The NSA say that this program is strictly for finding terrorists and preventing any future terrorism attack it still bothers many people that nothing is private. The only reason that the NSA can perform these actions is because they are a government supported program. The privacy of millions of people can be violated because the government believes its right.
This caused much controversy as Americans would classify him as a traitor or hero for what he did. Americans called him a hero because they feel like they should have some type of privacy and security when it comes to their private documents and what they do over the internet as well as in their free time. Other Americans feel like he is a traitor because he revealed documents that were classified and did not have permission from the National Security Agency to leak them to the public. I classify Edward Snowden as a hero. The National Security Agency (abbreviated NSA) is the creator and manager of the signals intelligence agency of the United States of America who’s responsibility it is to check and analyze all foreign communications.
Because such captives have been categorized as "enemy combatants" and not prisoners of war, the administration has said the conditions of their detention are not governed by the Geneva Conventions, though they would be treated humanely. The abuse at Guantanamo Bay has been reported several times in the news. The use of military trained dogs for intimidation and torture is just another atrocity that has come to light. “They were considered "authorized" by the Army field manual and Defense Department guidance and were therefore not considered abusive. Identical tactics were later used at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison by military police officers who were not authorized to employ them.”(White).
One of the flaws that the opposition notices is that in way shield laws afford extra privileges to journalists and that no citizen should be able to ignore a court ordered subpoena. Simply put, journalist would be placed above the law. Justice Department Official John Ashcroft stated that “reporters today are driven by their editors to deliver tersely written “scoops” usually whispered to them by individuals with political or self-serving agendas who refuse to be identified” and that they “should ultimately be held accountable for acting recklessly and irresponsibly. Allowing journalist this privilege would only further allow them you be able to utilize non-credible sources. Opponents also cite problems with defining who is considered a journalist or news gatherer and who is not.
It is clear that people do not abide by the laws regarding to alcohol consumption and that shows their lack of respect for this law so what’s stopping people from loosing respect for other laws and in consequence not following them? When laws are put in place but they are difficult or near impossible to enforce it causes a loss of respect by the members of society. Albert Einstein is correct in saying that “nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced”. In conclusion there is no point in making a law which cannot be