On May 12, 2016 the court case Binks/McKay vs the United States challenged the idea of the Fourth Amendment. The case explains the situation between Binks and McKay, who claimed that the FBI violated their Fourth amendment rights when the FBI searched through their Facebook messages after being suspected of being terrorists. This occured when Binks and McKay were discovered to have been communicating with a supposed ISIS member. They had claimed to have no intentions of joining the terrorist group. In this case, Sam and Melanie (petitioners) reminded us that a warrant and reason for searching is a necessity when it comes to violating one’s right to privacy. However, court justices Danny and Nick both asked similarly: “Why do you think that violates their privacy?…
“1) Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by authorizing the FBI to execute searches without criminal or foreign intelligence probable cause; 2) Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by authorizing the FBI to execute searches without providing targeted individuals with notice or an opportunity to be heard; 3) Section 215 violates the Fifth Amendment by authorizing the FBI to deprive individuals of property without due process; 4) Section 215 violates the First Amendment by categorically and permanently prohibiting any person from disclosing to any other person that the FBI has sought records or personal belongings; and 5) Section 215 violates the First Amendment by authorizing the FBI to investigate individuals based on their exercise…
The most practical impact we saw from 9/11 today is the way security and passengers are handled at airports. Today we see many restrictions when it comes to traveling. For instance, liquids and toiletries are required to be a certain size and must be placed in clear, sealed bags. Food and bottled water is not permitted through security. Passengers must put their carry on bags onto a conveyer belt that shows what they are carrying. This process makes sure nothing that is not permitted is carried onto the flight. As for passengers themselves, they are required to walk through a metal detector and once they have done so they are chosen randomly to for more intense screenings. Over the time span of 10 years, airport security has tried many different…
United States was meant to expand the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment by making it more flexible, with the purpose of protecting citizens against invasive methods of surveillance from the government. Prior to this case the Court had ruled in the Olmstead v. U.S. that wiretapping did not violate a Fourth amendment violation since the government did not control the telephone wires and the agents did not trespass onto the property of Olmstead and it was gathered by hearing (souza). The Court said that there was no search or seizure since the government did not go onto the property or seized any papers that are protected under the Fourth Amendment ("Katz V. United…
The September 11 attacks were a series of suicide attacks by Al-Qaeda upon the United States. On the morning of the attacks 19 of Al-Qaeda’s terrorists hijacked four jet airliners. The hijackers then crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, killing everyone on board and many of those who were working in the buildings. Both of the buildings collapsed within two hours of the collisions. Because of the collapse nearby buildings were damaged, even destroyed. The hijackers crashed the third airplane into the Pentagon which is located in Arlington, Virginia. The fourth plane was crashed into a field near Shanksville in Pennsylvania after some of its passengers attempted to retake control of the plane. Unfortunately…
On September 11, 2001, about 3,000 people were killed, and over 6,000 people were injured in the United States. Al-Qaeda, a group of Islamic extremists, hijacked four airplanes to execute suicide attacks. Two of the compromised airliners hit the World Trade Center towers in New York City. Another plane struck the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and the last plane crashed in Pennsylvania in a field. The American people were unfortunately surprised because of those attacks; many loved ones were lost, and many terrorists escaped from our government’s reach. Because of this infamous event, the officials of the United States government have debated and are currently debating whether they, the government, should be allowed to observe and retain information…
The Patriot Act’s Title II is intended to safeguard American soil and her citizens from the clandestine activities, both electronically and conventionally, of terrorist organizations. Under the Act, law enforcement and intelligence communities are afforded greater access to surveillance procedures and enjoy a greater breadth of discretion when dealing with foreign nationals and immigrants on US soil. However, the Act disregards many of our basic constitutional rights. Those same…
Our forefathers with great fortitude put together a document that would be forever known as the constitution. This document addressed the rights of the citizens of the newly formed states. One amendment has been a focal point of discussion in recent weeks with the leakage of NSA protocol. The fourth amendment states, “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…
“We might have accomplished something if we have been able to treat the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in a way similar to how we treat the damage on the nation's highways-by implementing practices and requirements that are directly related to results (as in the case of speed limit, safety belts, and the like, which took decades to accomplish in the cause of auto safety)-rather than by throwing the nation into a near panic and using the resulting fears to justify expensive but not necessarily effective or even relevant measures.”…
Was 9/11 a big mistake? America still reels from the attack on our sense of security, the devastating event an abrupt betrayal of our trust in social respect. Before the act of terrorism, we trusted that everyone was doing what they could for the good of humankind, if not for the nation. With the fall of the World Trade Center came the mistrust of a religious group that gradually expanded to any random stranger on the street. The general fear the public has of a crime with no aim, an attack on our nerves, has grown exponentially since that first breach of common good, but the real question is, what have we learned from such an event?…
On October 26th, 2001, just 45 days after September 11th a panicked Congress passed, with little debate, the USA Patriot Act. The 342 page patriot act violates our 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendments, thus making it unconstitutional. I don't know why Congress passed this act, or how it got through the Supreme Court, but most people in Congress didn't even read the Patriot Act. I am sure that our founding fathers would not have wanted the Patriot Act. Just look at what Ben Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."…
Many Americans are being watched, in great detail, by the government. In its ongoing battle against crime and terrorism, the U.S. has ramped up its surveillance on individuals over the years. As in the book, 1984, by George Orwell, "Big Brother Is Watching You". Many people feel that this surveillance is a major invasion of privacy and a violation of their rights.…
All citizens of The United States deserve their privacy, but in those emergency situations where you have to invade someone’s privacy for the greater good of others than that’s acceptable. The Fourth Amendment offers and important safeguard against unjustified government surveillance, all of us are granted that right when we are born in the United States.…
Is it acceptable for the government to search if it has no reason to suspect a person has done something wrong? Today’s application of the Fourth Amendment would surprise those who drafted it and not just because they could not imagine technologies like the Internet and drones. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, policing consisted of citizen patrols or a loose collection of sheriffs and constables, who lacked the tools to maintain order as the police do today. That said, to determine if the right to privacy is a threat to our national security, I reviewed the Fourth Amendment, the government’s use of surveillance, and arguments for as well as against its use.…
“The NSA is not listening to Americans' phone calls or monitoring their emails” (Does the Government). As the government states they are permitted to collect any Americans communications The Fourth Amendment protects your privacy, for instance the police cannot search personal properties. Due to the definition of "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,” it makes people feel secure (Legal Information). In addition, it prevents all irrelevant searches that are not useful. On the other hand the Fourth Amendment makes it challenging for law enforcement to gather information. The Fourth Amendment is beneficial to citizens: it protects privacy, makes people feel secure, and deters searches, although it makes amassing evidence more arduous for the law-enforcement community.…