CJ 2500 MOD 6 FINAL

6

Constitutionality of Search and Seizure

It is vital to review the Fourth Amendment because the problem of searches and seizures has brought up some significant concerns about personal privacy and citizen rights under the amendment. It was discovered that the focus point used to decide whether searches and seizures can be carried out is the reasonableness of privacy expectations.

Due to the inconsistent expectations of privacy, one of the most contentious issues has been that of searches and seizures. Due to these discrepancies, it is crucial to investigate the subject in greater detail with the aim of determining when searches and seizures are justified and when they are not.

According to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, one of the most fundamental rights that Americans enjoy is the ability to be free from unauthorized searches and seizures. A citizen is protected by the Amendment from arbitrary searches and seizures of their property (Brady, 2016). The key word here is "unreasonable," as there may be legitimate reasons for searches and seizures (depending on whether a potential offender has a right to expect privacy) (Find Law, 2017).

The effort made by an individual to restrict access by others to their property is a clear indication of their expectation of privacy and is not considered obsolete (Kenneally, 2016). However, judges frequently evaluate the propriety of a person's expectation of privacy based on their own experiences, which results in discrepancies between how citizens view privacy and how the law treats them (Fogel, 2014).

The main concern with searches and seizures is related to a person's legitimate expectations of privacy, which are assessed depending on the situation. An individual whose vehicle was stopped by a police officer for a traffic infraction cannot properly expect privacy as a breach occurred when it comes to the reasonableness of such expectations. The court will view the search and any potential seizures as justified if the police searches because they have some suspicions.

On the other hand, it will be deemed unreasonable if the police enter a person's home without a warrant or previous notification or justification. As a result, there is a distinction between lawful and illegal searches and seizures, depending on whether a person has the right to anticipate privacy.

The expectation of privacy is a concept that is closely related to the searches and seizures carried out by law enforcement officials. When persons do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy, as demonstrated by the examples with houses and cars, searches and seizures are deemed reasonable. Since there are differences in how courts and public view reasonableness, it is advised to define the term more precisely to prevent misconceptions.

The core components of the Fourth Amendment are the inquiry, seizure, pause and search, warrant, reasonable protection, and exclusionary test. In order for a person to value the security of the correction, the courts are responsible for determining what activities are included by the Fourth Amendment's provisions for pursuit and seizure (Swanson, Chamelin, Territo, and Taylor, 2006). In any case, and if given the chance, the Court will introduce the single to look and seizure if it determines that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the circumstances at hand. The Fourth Amendment states that when a professional connected to a police association intrudes on a person's intelligent desire for security, an infringement has occurred. In a short while, searches and searches can be attempting to carry out when carrying out genital or butt assessments. Likewise, if and when they are supported by a credible justification and carried out in a standard manner, electronic discernment and a dog sniff qualify as reasonable inquiries under the Fourth Amendment (Kim, 2017).

There are two distinct habits that can cause a seizure. Either a piece of property or a person can be taken. When a person's possessory excitement for their property is interfered with, it is considered to be a case of property capture. People are said to be exploited if they believe their big chance has been interfered with by professionals (Kim, 2017). The person in charge of the law needs strong justifications in order to hold onto someone or something lawfully. However, if a law enforcement official is confident that a suspect has turned himself in or poses a threat to others, they may make warrantless arrests (Hinkle, 2015; Kim, 2017).

One other provision of the Fourth Amendment is the pause and search look through clause. As shown, a warrant and reasonable thinking are two distinct parts of the transformation, and they both foresee crucial developments in search and seizure, as was previously discussed. The exclusionary rule, a guideline designed to ensure that law enforcement complies with the Fourth Amendment's requirements for search and seizure, is another element of search and seizure. The rule states that any approval obtained illegally or that does not uphold the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible and cannot be used in court (Taylor, Fritsch, and Liederbach, 2014). For instance, the Supreme Court reasoned in Map v. Ohio that the Wolf v. Colorado ruling was invalid because the Court had conceded that it had obtained the evidence illegally. The Fourth Amendment is rejected when people pause, search, drive the region, have bars with legitimate and reasonable justification, and when it can be demonstrated that there are no alternative workable solutions (Swanson et al., 2006).

With a warrant to use robots to inspect the porch or interfere with a warrant to monitor someone's movements for a few days, the cops shouldn't just stand there doing nothing. With all the recent advancements, cops can use tools like stingrays to screen a target area or property (Feeney, 2017). A stingray connects with nearby phones via a sign that is kept up as such power. Whatever the application, this enhancement can be used to discover a dangerous person and make things OK. Additionally, while this is insufficient, if the organization were to decide to install GPS trackers in people's (PCs) or vehicles and utilize them to watch out for its neighborhood residents, it wouldn't violate the Fourth Amendment (Feeney, 2017). While the methods for interpreting the Fourth Amendment have progressed, it is believed that the exclusionary rule, Miranda warnings, and warrants have seen enormous advancements. Whatever the situation, despite how everything ought to be accomplished, more is still needed. It is necessary to adapt both existing and new components to the modifications. (Brady, 2016).

References

Brady, M. (2016). The lost “effects” of the Fourth Amendment: Giving personal property due protection. The Yale Law Journal, 125(4), 796-1149.

Find Law. (2017).  Search and seizure law. Web.

Fogel, J. (2014). From the bench: A reasonable expectation of privacy. Litigation Journal, 40(4), 1-5.

Kenneally, E. (2016).  Reasonable expectations of privacy indicators. Web.

Feeney, M. (2017). How the Fourth Amendment can keep up with modern surveillance. The Weekly Standard. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/how-the-fourth-amendment-can-keep-up-with-modern-surveillance

Hinkle, R. K. (2015). Legal constraint in the US Courts of Appeals.  The Journal of Politics,  77(3), 721-735.

Kerr, O. S. (2013). The Curious History of Fourth Amendment Searches.  The Supreme Court Review,  2012(1), 67-97.

Kim, J. (2017). Fourth Amendment. Legitimate Information Institute. Recovered from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment

Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). U. S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

Swanson, C., Chamelin, C., Territo, L., and Taylor, R. (2006). Criminal investigation. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Taylor, R. W., Fritsch, E. J., & Liederbach, J. (2014).  Digital crime and digital terrorism. Prentice Hall Press.

TOPIC TO DISCUSS

How gps tracking units placed on cars can be obtained by law enforcement consistent with the 4th amendment and how such devices can help criminal investigations? Remember there must be critical analysis from you I the paper and not just a book report.

Overview:

A final paper with a minimum of 1000 words is required to be submitted this week. Please make sure that your paper is on the topic which has been approved by your instructor. 

As a reminder, yhe text must be cited a minimum of four (4) times in your paper, as well as at least one outside source. Wikipedia is not a valid source for a scholarly paper due to a lack of verified information. 

Paper Requirements:

A final paper of at least 1000 words will be required. The text must be cited a minimum of four (4) times in your paper, as well as at least one outside source. Wikipedia is not a valid source for a scholarly paper due to a lack of verified information. Your topic must be approved before the completion of the paper. 

The final paper shall require that you conduct a more detailed analysis of a subject area than what is covered in our text. The paper must be original work conducted by the student. Plagiarism or abuse of research will not be tolerated and shall result in reporting to the university and a failing grade. Guidelines for acceptable research methods are noted in the rules and regulations of Indiana Tech. The final paper is worth 200 points. 

The final paper is designed to aid you in critically thinking about a variety of criminal justice topics and to get you engaged in the problem-solving process.  The paper is to be word-processed, in size 12 font, double-spaced with one-inch margins around the page (default), using the Times New Roman letter style. Your paper should be thorough and scholarly. Avoid jargon and street language. For instance, "cop" is generally unacceptable, and "police officer" is preferred. A person may be "mentally ill" or "legally insane," not "nuts."

The paper shall be written in the APA style and be 1000+ words in length. A word count should be included at the end of the paper and a reference section will also be included by the student. Remember, this is not a book report. This is a written analysis and critical review of an assigned topic. The paper must be typed in paragraph form. Address topics in paragraph form, and do not use a bulleted or numbered list.

6

Constitutionality of Search and Seizure

It is vital to review the Fourth Amendment because the problem of searches and seizures has brought up some significant concerns about personal privacy and citizen rights under the amendment. It was discovered that the focus point used to decide whether searches and seizures can be carried out is the reasonableness of privacy expectations.

Due to the inconsistent expectations of privacy, one of the most contentious issues has been that of searches and seizures. Due to these discrepancies, it is crucial to investigate the subject in greater detail with the aim of determining when searches and seizures are justified and when they are not.

According to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, one of the most fundamental rights that Americans enjoy is the ability to be free from unauthorized searches and seizures. A citizen is protected by the Amendment from arbitrary searches and seizures of their property (Brady, 2016). The key word here is "unreasonable," as there may be legitimate reasons for searches and seizures (depending on whether a potential offender has a right to expect privacy) (Find Law, 2017).

The effort made by an individual to restrict access by others to their property is a clear indication of their expectation of privacy and is not considered obsolete (Kenneally, 2016). However, judges frequently evaluate the propriety of a person's expectation of privacy based on their own experiences, which results in discrepancies between how citizens view privacy and how the law treats them (Fogel, 2014).

The main concern with searches and seizures is related to a person's legitimate expectations of privacy, which are assessed depending on the situation. An individual whose vehicle was stopped by a police officer for a traffic infraction cannot properly expect privacy as a breach occurred when it comes to the reasonableness of such expectations. The court will view the search and any potential seizures as justified if the police searches because they have some suspicions.

On the other hand, it will be deemed unreasonable if the police enter a person's home without a warrant or previous notification or justification. As a result, there is a distinction between lawful and illegal searches and seizures, depending on whether a person has the right to anticipate privacy.

The expectation of privacy is a concept that is closely related to the searches and seizures carried out by law enforcement officials. When persons do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy, as demonstrated by the examples with houses and cars, searches and seizures are deemed reasonable. Since there are differences in how courts and public view reasonableness, it is advised to define the term more precisely to prevent misconceptions.

The core components of the Fourth Amendment are the inquiry, seizure, pause and search, warrant, reasonable protection, and exclusionary test. In order for a person to value the security of the correction, the courts are responsible for determining what activities are included by the Fourth Amendment's provisions for pursuit and seizure (Swanson, Chamelin, Territo, and Taylor, 2006). In any case, and if given the chance, the Court will introduce the single to look and seizure if it determines that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the circumstances at hand. The Fourth Amendment states that when a professional connected to a police association intrudes on a person's intelligent desire for security, an infringement has occurred. In a short while, searches and searches can be attempting to carry out when carrying out genital or butt assessments. Likewise, if and when they are supported by a credible justification and carried out in a standard manner, electronic discernment and a dog sniff qualify as reasonable inquiries under the Fourth Amendment (Kim, 2017).

There are two distinct habits that can cause a seizure. Either a piece of property or a person can be taken. When a person's possessory excitement for their property is interfered with, it is considered to be a case of property capture. People are said to be exploited if they believe their big chance has been interfered with by professionals (Kim, 2017). The person in charge of the law needs strong justifications in order to hold onto someone or something lawfully. However, if a law enforcement official is confident that a suspect has turned himself in or poses a threat to others, they may make warrantless arrests (Hinkle, 2015; Kim, 2017).

One other provision of the Fourth Amendment is the pause and search look through clause. As shown, a warrant and reasonable thinking are two distinct parts of the transformation, and they both foresee crucial developments in search and seizure, as was previously discussed. The exclusionary rule, a guideline designed to ensure that law enforcement complies with the Fourth Amendment's requirements for search and seizure, is another element of search and seizure. The rule states that any approval obtained illegally or that does not uphold the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible and cannot be used in court (Taylor, Fritsch, and Liederbach, 2014). For instance, the Supreme Court reasoned in Map v. Ohio that the Wolf v. Colorado ruling was invalid because the Court had conceded that it had obtained the evidence illegally. The Fourth Amendment is rejected when people pause, search, drive the region, have bars with legitimate and reasonable justification, and when it can be demonstrated that there are no alternative workable solutions (Swanson et al., 2006).

With a warrant to use robots to inspect the porch or interfere with a warrant to monitor someone's movements for a few days, the cops shouldn't just stand there doing nothing. With all the recent advancements, cops can use tools like stingrays to screen a target area or property (Feeney, 2017). A stingray connects with nearby phones via a sign that is kept up as such power. Whatever the application, this enhancement can be used to discover a dangerous person and make things OK. Additionally, while this is insufficient, if the organization were to decide to install GPS trackers in people's (PCs) or vehicles and utilize them to watch out for its neighborhood residents, it wouldn't violate the Fourth Amendment (Feeney, 2017). While the methods for interpreting the Fourth Amendment have progressed, it is believed that the exclusionary rule, Miranda warnings, and warrants have seen enormous advancements. Whatever the situation, despite how everything ought to be accomplished, more is still needed. It is necessary to adapt both existing and new components to the modifications. (Brady, 2016).

References

Brady, M. (2016). The lost “effects” of the Fourth Amendment: Giving personal property due protection. The Yale Law Journal, 125(4), 796-1149.

Find Law. (2017).  Search and seizure law. Web.

Fogel, J. (2014). From the bench: A reasonable expectation of privacy. Litigation Journal, 40(4), 1-5.

Kenneally, E. (2016).  Reasonable expectations of privacy indicators. Web.

Feeney, M. (2017). How the Fourth Amendment can keep up with modern surveillance. The Weekly Standard. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/how-the-fourth-amendment-can-keep-up-with-modern-surveillance

Hinkle, R. K. (2015). Legal constraint in the US Courts of Appeals.  The Journal of Politics,  77(3), 721-735.

Kerr, O. S. (2013). The Curious History of Fourth Amendment Searches.  The Supreme Court Review,  2012(1), 67-97.

Kim, J. (2017). Fourth Amendment. Legitimate Information Institute. Recovered from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment

Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). U. S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

Swanson, C., Chamelin, C., Territo, L., and Taylor, R. (2006). Criminal investigation. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Taylor, R. W., Fritsch, E. J., & Liederbach, J. (2014).  Digital crime and digital terrorism. Prentice Hall Press.