Civil Liberties: Article Analysis

The Fourth Amendment is the first line protection against the government and their officials from violating our privacy. The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place. This Amendment protects us in the following situations such as being questioned while walking down the street, being pulled over while driving, entering individual’s homes for arrest and searching of evidence while there. In most scenarios, police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant, or a belief rising to the

The purpose for the Fourth Amendment is to protect people from intrusion of the government in areas where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It prohibits searches and seizures unless they are conducted with probable cause and under reasonable circumstances. “The Fourth Amendment only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government or pursuant to governmental direction. Surveillance and investigatory actions taken by strictly private persons, such as private investigators, suspicious spouses, or nosey neighbors, are not governed by the Fourth Amendment” (Criminal.Findlaw.com, 2013).

From the beginning, the United States Constitution has guaranteed the American people civil liberties. These liberties have given citizens rights to speak, believe, and act freely. The Constitution grants citizens the courage to express their mind about something they believe is immoral or unjust. The question is, how far are citizens willing to extend the meanings of these liberties? Some people believe that American citizens take advantage of their civil liberties, harming those around them. On the contrary, many other people feel that civil liberties are necessary tools to fight for their Constitutional rights.

There are moments when civil liberties should be curtailed in democratic countries like the US and Canada, in order to maintain national security. While this is true, there are also moments that an individual’s civil liberty should be maintained whereas it is not. Consequently, governments should make clear boundaries as to which occasions civil liberties should be restricted. For instance, both the Patriotic Act and the Anti-terrorist Act allowed rover wiretapping which are needed to deal with terrorists who have a sophisticated knowledge of how technology works.

In the Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution provides privacy as it states in the Constitution “the rights of the people to be secure in their persons, house, 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.” this amendment assures you how you have the right to your privacy a personal life or just technology without a search warrants. The Fourth Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights because it deals with the privacy for the individuals and because the people have the right to feel secure in their house or while using their technologies. There has been many court cases regarding the rights that the Fourth Amendment provides. For example in the article “Creating a Fourth Amendment loophole” talks about how there was a policeman who suspected drugs in an apartment and kicked the door open without a search warrant. When they

The U.S. Supreme Court has defined the Fourth Amendment to mean that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy for your personal information as well.” Take the United States v. Leon opinion for example; the Judge considered the illegal evidence obtained by law enforcement to be admissible because it was collected by “good faith”. Yet, the warrant was later founded to be flawed. The Rutherford Institute also states , “The Supreme Court has also held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply in certain situations: (1) probation or parole revocation hearings; (2) tax hearings; (3) deportation hearings; (4) when government officials illegally seize evidence outside the United States; (5) when a “private actor” (i.e., not a government employee) illegally seized the evidence; or (6) when the illegally seized evidence is used to impeach the defendant’s

The 4th amendment protects the citizens of the U.S. rights against unlawful search and seizure. This includes building a database of information that can be retrieved at any time for any reason just for the sake of collecting information. This gives the government access to personal information without the need of a warrant, just to “look into” someone’s life. If this is okay for the government to do, what is next? Personalized RFID tags for every individual who comes into the US? This would allow the government to secure the country by knowing where every individual is located in the country. Where is invading others privacy okay for the sake of securing the country from

The government’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has been used to amass a collection of phone records, gain access to other records, and carry out search and seizure without a warrant; however, the government has used this approach to find threats to America.

The Fourth Amendment has limits on the government’s rights to search our houses and businesses and to seize documents and other personal effects. It requires that the government should have reasonable cause for the search and seizure. That is, there must be a proof to support the specific search. The main drawback of the Fourth Amendment is first, personal information is not safe in our homes or in our offices. Most of the laws allow police to get access from nongovernment databases without any

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he 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." The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary governmental intrusions. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment to allow for a number of exceptions to this requirement where there are exigent circumstances.

The 4th amendment to the US Constitution serve as a security to the privacy of citizen but as American citizen would rarely have the government to use the surveillance to ensure the nation security from terrorist threat. People use the internet, phones, and cameras to record information. The government do wire taps and now even in the City of Atlanta we have camera on light poles and on the streets in downtown but it is for a good reason to help protect the people that work, live and walk the streets this also help the police where that they are short of help. I think the government has stop more attacks on the country using the surveillance since 9/11 incident. I believed if this will help protect us then the government

The Fourth Amendment protects the right of citizens from illegal and unreasonable searches. The Fourth Amendment states that a soldier, government agent, or police officer is not allowed to search your home unless there is a probable cause. Unless, if a law enforcement officer were to believe that you may have committed a crime, a search warrant is needed. It is not legal and is considered a crime if a soldier, officer, etc were to check or take property without a search warrant. This gives citizens the freedom of privacy with their belongings.

The Fourth Amendment Precludes worry about government trespassing. David Sirota author of the website”Does the government actually understand the 4th Amendment?” says "Mother Jones Reports that an 86 page court ruling determined that the government had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and engaged in unconstitutional spying"(understand). Cornell University law school states, "electronic surveillance is also considered a search under the fourth amendment.” (Fourth amendment). Cornell University also states,"A seizure of a person, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, occurs when the police's conduct would communicate to a reasonable person."(Fourth Amendment).According to the American Civil Liberties Union the NSA examines

The fourth amendment is designed to protect the privacy of its citizens, its ultimate goal is to protect the right of privacy from the arbitrary government. Due to the fourth amendment, the NSA can only record the phone numbers and the duration of citizen’s phone calls, not the content. Nobody can heedfully listen onto the content of your phone calls because of the fourth amendment. As well as phone calls, the NSA can also not read or document your personal emails. If the NSA does conduct any illegal recordings of any sort the information cannot be used in court or to prosecute an individual. Lastly, if the NSA wants to access any information of phone calls or emails of citizens, they must acquire a court order or a warrant to access the information

According to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, “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.” Yet, in the United States at this very moment, the government is collecting information on everyone who makes a call, sends an email, plays a video game, or even owns a computer. They are in people’s houses without actually having to be there. This collection of information is unlawful, and unconstitutional, violating exactly what the government