Page 58 - January 2020 IIssue new year
P. 58
The Fourth Amendment Wthin the Criminal Justice System
B
R
O
W
A
R
D
U
N
people are becoming more ableness and warrant, then Photo Courtesy of google.com I
protective of their privacy comes divers’ interpreta- ous cases, particularly V
due to the easiness of tions of reasonableness with the advancement of E
breaking into it and Amer- and probable cause (19). technology (16) that pose R
ica is eager to defend its The most famous case new questions on expecta- S
security and the safety used as a precedent under tion of privacy. Situations I
of its people because the the fourth amendment is can merely involve the T
threats are taking differ- Katz v. United States (24) transmission of electronic Y
ent shapes. The problem with its Two-pronged test signals without physi-
is that both parties can improvised by Justice cal trespass. We also cite 2
go to the extreme while Harlan. It defines whether Kyllo v. United States (28) 0
some agents can use their the expectation of privacy where the use of a thermal 2
authority in abusive ways is reasonable and whether imaging device was con- 0
without anyone noticing. the society is prepared to sidered unconstitutional
recognize it as such. After due to the agents from the
Coming down to the spe- Katz, the courts refined department of interior us-
cifics of the fourth amend- the interpretation of un- ing a device unknown to
ment it is agreed that it has reasonable searches and the general public also the
to involve a government seizures and started count- intrusion was warrantless.
agent acting with author- ing the immaterial intru- Another case would be
ity and it concerns people sion with technology as United States v. Jones (15)
who have a direct interest a search. It extended the where the famous concur-
to the targets of searches protection of the amend- ring opinion of Justice
and seizures. The basic ment to all areas. It has Sotomayor became repeat-
prone clauses are reason- been claimed in numer edly cited in cases of the
58
