The most difficult problem that arises for the courts because of technology is the codification of the Fourth Amendment to apply to technological change and progress. The vast changes technology brings to surveillance, security, and data collection offer a challenge to courts in classifying these new technologies and monitoring their use within the limits of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that people have the right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” An influential dissent written by Louis Brandeis contends that the amendment does not simply protect a person’s property but the “right to be let alone.” Though, current Fourth Amendment law echoes Brandeis’s opinion, courts run into new problems of interpretation as new technology is developed. Courts are forced to utilize cumbersome metaphors in order to make laws based on a constitutional amendment that was written by people who could not anticipate the technological changes that would happen in the future. This makes it difficult to anticipate and provide for changes to come, so courts are constantly playing catch-up as new technologies and new uses for those technologies are brought up. In addition, courts need to leave room for uncertainty in laws and decisions in order to allow for future technological change. Several cases make apparent the court’s struggle to consistently apply the Fourth Amendment to growing technologies: Kyllo v. United States, United States v. Andrus, and !!!!!! In Kyllo v. United States (2001), the police used a thermal imaging device in order to procure evidence that Kyllo was growing marijuana in his home. With the information obtained from the device, they were ... ... middle of paper ... ...future. These cases demonstrate the issues courts have faced in the categorizing of new technologies under the Fourth Amendment. They need to rely on figurative language to make comparisons when the technology is hard to comprehend or classify. They need to rule on whether there are limits of technology and its impacts on personal property and privacy. Finally, they need to question whether certain personal information can be considered private and whether public disclosure is necessary when companies give customer information to government entities. The law is rapidly changing in these areas, and it will take some time for the courts to catch up to technology and standardize rulings across the board. Works Cited Solove, Daniel J., and Paul M. Schwartz. Privacy, Information, and Technology. 3rd ed. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2011. Print.
INTRODUCTION: In Kyllo vs. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), the police, believing there to be a marijuana set-up in the defendant’s place of residence, acquired a warrant to ascertain this for certain through use of a thermal-imaging scan. The scan, which was conducted outside the premises and measured heat signatures on the building relative to other residences in the same triplex. This brought the question of unreasonable search and seizure before the Court, but more significantly, the question of where the line should be drawn regarding the use of new advances in technology.
Communication surveillance has been a controversial issue in the US since the 1920's, when the Supreme Court deemed unwarranted wiretaps legitimate in the case of Olmstead v United States. Since telephone wires ran over public grounds, and the property of Olmstead was not physically violated, the wiretap was upheld as lawful. However, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling in 1967 in the landmark case of Katz v United States. On the basis of the fourth amendment, the court established that individuals have the right to privacy of communication, and that wiretapping is unconstitutional unless it is authorized by a search warrant. [Bowyer, 142-143] Since then, the right to communication privacy has become accepted as an integral facet of the American deontological code of ethics. The FBI has made an at least perfunctory effort to respect the public's demand for Internet privacy with its new Internet surveillance system, Carnivore. However, the current implementation of Carnivore unnecessarily jeopardizes the privacy of innocent individuals.
...e Court would also fine Mr. Dickerson guilty of contraband. However, after reading the ruling, I understand how easily and differently the Fourth Amendment may be understood and withheld. Another good point was proven in the “Mapp vs. Ohio” case where law enforcement did indeed violate the Fourth Amendment. Interpretation of this amendment was apparent back in the 1760’s where they had cases based on the freedom of citizens. The Fourth Amendment is a very creative amendment that gives the people the right of freedom and to protect their own properties. As a future law enforcement officer, I chose this amendment to gather information on the proper procedures to obtain a search warrant and understand how improperly obtaining a search warrant may change an outcome of a case. Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment may be perceived differently in a court of law.
The Bill of Rights or the first 10 amendments to the Constitution was proposed to Congress in 1789 by James Madison in response to the Anti- Federalist movement that lobbied for an extended amount of rights that would further safeguard liberty. The 4th amendment in particular was drafted to acknowledge the abuse of the writ of assistance, a “search warrant” issued by the British government to search boats that were thought to contain smuggled material in Colonial America. The 4th amendment can be broken down into 3 parts: what activities are considered to be a “search” or a “seizure”; what is a probable cause for a “search” and “seizure” and finally, how violations should be dealt with. The evolution of the 4th amendment is long and tumultuous, starting from what it meant at time of drafting, to the controversy over different interpretations in modern times. Through all the controversies and the debate over the meaning of the 4th amendment, the essence is always the same: to protect man’s liberty.
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
"Internet Privacy." Congressional Quarterly Researcher 8.41 ( Nov. 6, 1998 ). Busse Library, Cedar Rapids . 6 July 2003 <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher>
... was instrumental to recognition of the constitutional right to privacy and the interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. This case shows that the Constitution is a living document that can be maneuvered to accommodate for the adaption of American peoples. While it is a stationary and unchanging document, unique interpretations can be gleamed.
The purpose of the Amendments was to protect people from being harmed or taken advantage of by various government groups. For each Amendment, is to outline the rights of people and an individual crime or issue and on the ways it can be handled. Many of the Amendments are there to protect the life, liberty, and safety of citizens. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteen Amendments are all related to each other in the assuring the rights are adequately given to those individuals who are faced with criminal activities.
“Smartphones and the 4th Amendment”. The New York Times. (27 Apr. 2014).Web. 28 Apr. 2014.
Every citizen should have a basic right to privacy when they are using technology. This is another thing that the Fourth Amendment covers. The Fourth Amendment basically states that the government is not allowed to use your personal technology against you. Just because personal information is not physically there, but on the Internet or on a computer, it does not give the government the right to use it against
The emergence of new and innovative technology can be used in many deceitful or secretive ways by law enforcement agencies to convict a suspect. The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights has had a large influence in regulating the ways that law enforcement agencies may use technology against the everyday citizen. Technology can be used to obtain information on an individual without the individual being aware of the invasion of their privacy: e-mail accounts can be hacked, IP addresses can be traced, phones can be tapped and tracked, cars can be bugged.
Solove, Daniel J. “5 Myths about Privacy” Washington Post: B3. Jun 16 2013. SIRS. Web. 10
...our privacy in our homes, effects, paper, and activities, which is needed for an individual in their every day lives. It helps the law to put an end to criminal activities and to bring an end to the war on drugs and human smuggling, and many other serious crimes that happen every day in the United States. It also helps society to have peace of mind, knowing that they have the right to privacy in their own home, as long as the law is abided and the judicial system upholds the constitution, this right will always be aiding the fair and just side of the law side of the law. Society has the right to be protected from all criminal behavior, ever since the constitution was first created society has had this right, but the means used to restrict and control this criminal activity must be lawful and constitutional, and the fourth amendment helps us to guarantee this right!
As technology continues to advance, digital data and personal privacy have become even more crucial to protect. Mobile phones operate similar to small computers and have become an integral part of the way people communicate and live their lives and can contain a digital record of virtually every aspect of a person’s life. The Fourth amendment was added to United States Constitution in December 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. As stated by Swidle, the Fourth Amendment specifically provides: “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” (Swidle, 2013).
Staff, Proquest. At Issue: Technology and Privacy. N.p.: ProQuest LLC, 2013. Web. 5 Dec. 2013. .