The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure
In the Fourth Amendment, it 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” (Cornell University of Law). The Fourth Amendment states its main idea in this statement and through it American citizens and their belongings and records are protected from surveillance, searches, and seizures. However, in today’s digital world government officials have used what could be called an unconstitutional approach to the Fourth Amendment, causing them to monitor phone conversations. There have also been instances where personal records have been gained by law enforcement without any relevant reason. Additionally, …show more content…
As it states in the Fourth Amendment “A search or seizure is generally unreasonable and illegal without a warrant” (Cornell University Law School). Law enforcement, with the aid of a subpoena, can conduct a warrantless search only if it falls under circumstances where obtaining one would be illogical. The U.S. government loosely defines these circumstances and the meaning of relevancy. If property is, as Sensenbrenner states in his letter, “relevant to an authorized investigation into international terrorism”, then under section 215 of the Patriot Act the government is able “to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to issue an order for the production of tangible things” (Letter to Attorney General Eric Holder) and law enforcement can conduct a search and seizure. This court order must be relevant to an investigation or goes against the Fourth Amendment. This however is often overlooked by law enforcement and the privacy that American citizens enjoy under the Fourth Amendment is invaded. The U.S. government has claimed that it uses its flexible interpretation of the Fourth Amendment to protect the United States from terrorist …show more content…
government has used a relaxed approach to the Fourth Amendment. After September 11th, 2001, Congress enabled the Patriot Act in order to prevent future attacks from terrorists and protect the United States from other threats. The Patriot Act, as the Department of Justice states, provides “law enforcement with new tools to detect and prevent terrorism” (the U.S. Patriot Act: Preserving Life and Liberty) allowing them to access the information that is necessary for terrorist investigations and making it easier to prevent attacks. The Patriot Act also states that law enforcement is authorized to “obtain a search warrant anywhere a terrorist-related activity occurred”, which means that if there is evidence of terrorist activity, law enforcement is able to investigate. This involves the examination of personal records such as phone records and other personal records. As Daniel Zwerdling states in his article, that “you can't claim that information is private" (NPR) If it has been shared with companies that hold the e such as phone companies, electric companies, etc. The government justifies the examination and seizure of personal records with this argument. As a result, with this view of the Fourth Amendment, the U.S. government has been able to conduct multiple investigations, including some that are relevant to terrorism and others that are
In the Fourth Amendment, it 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” (Cornell University of Law). The Fourth Amendment states its main idea in this statement and through it American citizens and their belongings and records are protected from surveillance, searches, and seizures. However, in today’s digital world government officials have used what could be called an unconstitutional approach to the Fourth Amendment, causing them to monitor phone conversations. There have also been instances where personal records have been gained by law enforcement without any relevant reason. Additionally, …show more content…
As it states in the Fourth Amendment “A search or seizure is generally unreasonable and illegal without a warrant” (Cornell University Law School). Law enforcement, with the aid of a subpoena, can conduct a warrantless search only if it falls under circumstances where obtaining one would be illogical. The U.S. government loosely defines these circumstances and the meaning of relevancy. If property is, as Sensenbrenner states in his letter, “relevant to an authorized investigation into international terrorism”, then under section 215 of the Patriot Act the government is able “to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to issue an order for the production of tangible things” (Letter to Attorney General Eric Holder) and law enforcement can conduct a search and seizure. This court order must be relevant to an investigation or goes against the Fourth Amendment. This however is often overlooked by law enforcement and the privacy that American citizens enjoy under the Fourth Amendment is invaded. The U.S. government has claimed that it uses its flexible interpretation of the Fourth Amendment to protect the United States from terrorist …show more content…
government has used a relaxed approach to the Fourth Amendment. After September 11th, 2001, Congress enabled the Patriot Act in order to prevent future attacks from terrorists and protect the United States from other threats. The Patriot Act, as the Department of Justice states, provides “law enforcement with new tools to detect and prevent terrorism” (the U.S. Patriot Act: Preserving Life and Liberty) allowing them to access the information that is necessary for terrorist investigations and making it easier to prevent attacks. The Patriot Act also states that law enforcement is authorized to “obtain a search warrant anywhere a terrorist-related activity occurred”, which means that if there is evidence of terrorist activity, law enforcement is able to investigate. This involves the examination of personal records such as phone records and other personal records. As Daniel Zwerdling states in his article, that “you can't claim that information is private" (NPR) If it has been shared with companies that hold the e such as phone companies, electric companies, etc. The government justifies the examination and seizure of personal records with this argument. As a result, with this view of the Fourth Amendment, the U.S. government has been able to conduct multiple investigations, including some that are relevant to terrorism and others that are