What Do The Following Five Cases All Have In Common?

1555 Words 7 Pages
What do the following five cases all have in common? (1) National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, (1989), (2) Deal v. Spears, (1992), (3) O’Connor v. Ortega, (1987), (4) Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Illinois Railroad, (NMB, July 3, 194) and (5) Anderson v. Philadelphia, (1998). The core issue for all five of these cases…the fourth amendment the United States Constitution. “The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law” ("What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?" n.d.). Let’s examine each of the cases individually.
National Treasury Employees
…show more content…
Spears, Ms. Deal and Mr. Lucas filed a lawsuit under stating their constitutional rights were violated under the fourth amendment when Newell and Juanita Spears, owners of White Oak’s Package store intentionally intercepted, recorded and disclosed their telephone conversations in violation of the federal wiretapping statute. The lower court found for the plaintiff’s and awarded punitive damages in the amount of $40,000 and attorney fees. The defendant’s appealed. The key issue for the fourth amendment to apply are the following (1) Cause to believe and offense may have been committed, (2) Conversations being recorded must have specific focus item or items, (3) Recording must be for a specific period of time, (4) Recording must stop once item or items are recorded, (5) Individuals must be properly notified of being recorded. Federal law and most state laws allow monitoring as long as one party to the conversation consents (Ciocchetti, 2011, p. 33). In the case of Deal v. Spears the owners of White Oak’s Package Store were robbed of $16,000 and assumed it may have been committed by their employee Ms. Deal. They attached a recording device to the phone in the store, which was also the owner’s home line, in hopes of catching Ms. Deal incriminating herself in the robbery. After 22 hours of recording Ms. Deal conversations on the home/business line, she never incriminated herself in the theft of the $16,000. However the tapes did reveal she …show more content…
Philadelphia a lower court ruled the use of the polygraph for pre-employment screening by the police and correctional departments of the City of Philadelphia to be a violation of due process and equal protection rights of the plaintiffs. The fourth amendment guarantees individuals the right against unreasonable searches. Does a polygraph test constitute an unreasonable search? Even though you can argue that a polygraph test has not been proven scientifically to be 100 percent reliable, it has also not been proven to be unreliable either. For certain positions of employment, police, correction officer, certain Department of Defense positions, a polygraph test is required before employment selection. These positions can be classified under “compelling government interests”. The city of Philadelphia appealed this ruling, and the U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit court ruled; the polygraph requirement did not violate the plaintiffs ' constitutional rights, and reversed the lower court’s

Related Documents