Civil Liberties and safety Benjamin Franklin once said “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” It should be every rational citizen’s question if we should exchange our civil liberties for safety. How far do we have to go to keep our civil liberties from being violated? We are consistently surveyed by the government in every step. The government is going through our phone calls, text messages, private emails and social media. It’s almost impossible to keep anything privates nowadays. In my opinion, there should be a limit on how much of our privacy is surveyed by the government. Nowadays it’s hard to live a secret life. Every move we make is being watched. National security is the main reason why we are being surveyed. Our world has transformed to an internet revolution. We are engaged much in social media and internet more than ever. People are able to incite a revolution like the one in Egypt in recent years. The world we live in is much different to what it was twenty years ago. Internet changed the power of information exchange between us. Social media’s like Facebook and twitter connects the world tremendously. People exchange information in a matter of seconds. Therefore, the question becomes: Should our government go through our private emails and social media? As we learned in class, it’s our constitutional right not be searched without a court paper. The Fourth Amendment says “people have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, and that no warrant shall issue but on probable cause and specifying the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” However, we are being searched by the government consiste... ... middle of paper ... ...goes against every American constitutional right. If we enable government officials to take away our civil liberties we are going to become a fearful nation. When our founding fathers created the constitution they intended for us to have civil liberties. Politicians would say anything to get elected. Candidates like Donald trump benefits by inciting fear among citizens. What scares me is that if we vote for candidates like him our civil liberties would never be the same. Our government would determine what’s good or bad for us. That’s not freedom. This is the time where we need to draw between safety and civil liberty. Are American citizens giving up freedoms because of the war to terrorism with only the promise of safety? Are our civil liberties routinely violated? Do civil liberties exist the way they used to? Are they restricted to suit the governments needs
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
Typically the most basic civil liberties are found in a country’s bill of rights and then that country passes amendments as needed in order to grow the peoples’ civil liberties, or shrink them if need be. Now, in the case of the United States the people are not “granted“ civil liberties by the...
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
The 4th amendment protects people from being searched or having their belongings taken away without any good reason. The 4th amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. For many years prior to the ratifiation, people were smuggling goods because of the Stamp Act; in response Great Britain passed the writs of assistance so British guards could search someone’s house when they don’t have a good reason to. This amendment gave people the right to privacy. “Our answer to the question of what policy must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant.” This was addressed to officers searching people’s houses and taking things without having a proper reason. I find
The 4th Amendment only applies when certain criteria are met. The first criterion is that the government must be involved in a search or seizure via government action. This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor of the government. After the first criterion has been met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has occurred. A search is defined as the physical or technologic invasion of an area deemed by the majority of the court to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These places could be homes or a closed telephone booth depending on the circumstances of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes one's personal belongings or the individual themselves.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
The Constitution of the United States of America protects people’s rights because it limits the power of government against its people. Those rights guaranteed in the Constitution are better known as the Bill of Rights. Within these rights, the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures […]” (Knetzger & Muraski, 2008). According to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be issued before a search and seizure takes place. However, consent for lawful search is one of the most common exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
...ots and in effect saved a great many lives, however Edward Snowden has stated that “Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it.” We are in more danger of death by falling out of our bathtubs of being killed by the people who “protect” us than we are by being killed by a terrorist, and yet our government would ignore that, and use terrorism as a false pretense to freelance monitor its people.
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.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments
A-58). It also requires “a warrant that specifically describes the place to be searched, the person involved, and suspicious things to be seized” (Goldfield et al. A- 58). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people by preventing public officials from searching homes or personal belonging without reason. It also determines whether “someone 's privacy is diminished by a governmental search or seizure” (Heritage). This amendment protects citizens from having evidence which was seized illegally “used against the one whose privacy was invaded” (Heritage). This gives police incentive to abide by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s privacy “only when a person has a legitimate expectation to privacy” (FindLaw). This means the police cannot search person’s home, briefcase, or purse. The Fourth Amendment also requires there to be certain requirements before a warrant can be issued. The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant “when the police search a home or an office, unless the search must happen immediately, and there is no opportunity to obtain a warrant” (Heritage). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people, but also the safety of the people. When there is probable cause, a government official can destroy property or subdue a suspect. The Fourth Amendment prevents government officials from harassing the public.
.... I firmly believe all evidence points to this being the case. If we as a nation do not stand up and refuse to be subjected to the tyranny of the government concerning our constitutional rights, we will lose them altogether. We will truly be living in the land of the oppressed, and home of the cowards.
Throughout American history, our civil liberties as American citizens have evolved immensely. For example, the first ten amendments in the U.S. Constitution are referred to as the “The Bill of Rights,” which contains some of the most cherished civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion. These civil liberties however, did not originally apply to state governments or institutions the state established. The Bill of Rights focused solely on what the national government could not do, allowing state governments to do whatever they wanted. For example, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire supported Congregationalist ministers with tax payer dollars for decades. After the Civil War, civil liberties expanded, because three new amendments were added: the Thirteenth, abolishing slavery, the Fourteenth, which redefined civil liberties and rights, and the Fifteenth, which allowed adult, male citizens to vote. The due process clause (contained in the Fourteenth Amendment) became one of the most important civil liberties, because it applied the language of the Fifth Amendment to state governments, proclaiming that they could not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
Civil liberties is a term coined by the United States that guarantees certain rights to the people by the Bill of Rights. Although the Right to Privacy is not officially enumerated into the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled that citizens do in fact, have the right to their own privacy in their own home and their own beliefs. Privacy rights are an essential part of everyday American lives, in that everyone should be given the right to do whatever they want to do in privacy without anyone judging them or knowing what they have done. The right to privacy can also be considered jeopardizing to society because if someone is doing everything privately, including planning some sort of abomination or is doing something illegal, and the police does not find out, it can cause some serious damage to the society. The Patriot Act was enacted after 9-11 to ensure security among the nation. By doing so, the United States implemented strategies in protecting the people, such as decrease privacy rights that were “given” to the people. Also, in today’s society, iphones have an a setting in which the phone can track your location and so-call “help” you do whatever you need the phone to do. According to the Usatoday’s article, location services through GPS coordinates one’s online post and photos, in that one does not even know they are exposing their private lives to the online world. Although, The right to privacy plays an important role in keeping everyday Americans the will to do whatever they want in private, it may cause potential trouble in keeping everything a secret, even illegal actions.
in some circumstances to ensure national security, as we can't guaranty that all citizen would behaved responsibly towards the interest of our nation. For examples after many attacked that has been done to our country, the government did take away certain civil liberties on the basis