Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Provide a 2 pages analysis while answering the following question: Supreme Court of the US. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide. An abstract is required.
Provide a 2 pages analysis while answering the following question: Supreme Court of the US. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide. An abstract is required. Supreme Court of the US
The Fourth Amendment provides that:
“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.”
It is clear from the wording and the tone that subtle of the very Amendment lies in the ‘reasonableness’ of the searches and seizures, put into context, and so has been affirm in Kyllo v. United States (535) among many cases preceding it touching on the same. It is evident from the very outset that the small, quiet city of Intrusia is indeed, in a state of panic. a state of affairs that the state is in fact responsible for – the protection of life. The suspicion that someone was selling methamphetamine illegally to the locals, more so to the underage [teenagers] and that and a popular life has been lost due to inappropriate use of the said chemical has been proved beyond doubt. I firm the legal principles that give the police department the right to protect life, people and their properties thereof. However, so must be done accordance to the constitution. In this very case, the state prosecutor advised the police department to talk with the local cell phone carrier about “cloning” the phone of a suspect, Mr. Doe’s, which was done, in effect, allowing the police to read text messages sent and received by Mr. Doe. In no time the police had evidence implicating Mr. Doe as a dealer and the location of the meth lab, leading to the accused being convicted and his meth lab being closed.
This case requires explicit legal based decision on whether the interception of Mr. Doe’s text messages via a cloned phone was but an unreasonable search and seizure, exceeding the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. It is important to note that though individual’s privacy is doubt fundamental in this case, the degree to which the principles of search and seizure, more so of crucial evidence, promotes legitimate collective interests must not be lost, for laws enjoyed by every citizen of this nation also carry certain responsibilities (Bond v United States 539).
Cell phones are important tools of communication, with criminal enterprises included in the same processes. Accordingly, valuable incriminating information can indeed be intercepted from dangerous criminals. To reiterate, the fundamental rights enumerate under the bill of rights have responsibilities for individuals enjoying, and so is the cost. That even though the search and seizure protections under the Fourth Amendment infringes on privacy of modern day cell phone use[s], specific exceptions may well still justify the same process without legal warrants that has been an important part of the amendment. “the exigencies of the situation” that makes it objectively and reasonably compelling for the law enforcement to conduct [a] warrantless search[es] (Katz v. United States 394). Such exigencies may include the prevention of imminent destruction of evidence, and/or the prevention of imminent [further] injury.
The limits of modern day technology is unimaginable, and so goes to the extent to what cell phones provides with regards to individuals privacies. The fact that criminals also employ technology in coordinating their activities is in itself make it less worthy of the protection of the Fourth amendment. The police must follow the law in their quest to protect the public — get a warrant before conducting any searches and/or seizures. I affirm Mr. Doe’s claim that the interception of text messages violated the unreasonable search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment, and hereby quash his conviction.
Work cited
Bond v United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000).
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
