Bush signed into action the patriots act] (Verne 3). [ In section 213 of the patriot act it states that, provided a reason Information can be gathered through search of one premises and the allowance to seize any property; even electronic without informing the person of the search. Allow the search is only valid with a warrant] (liner 3). In the patriot act signed by the president to help institute safety into American citizens after the devastating 9/1 1 attacks It clearly stated that’s searches were only permitted with a searches were only permitted with a search warrant.
After being signed by the resident who knows the constitution, which states our natural; rights to privacy clearly understand that the secret spying on American citizen’s private lives is unlawful. Since seven years ago since the bush administration after the 9/1 1 attacks occurred because there was no probable cause before. Though bush may have begun spying, because he felt it was the best way to ensure U. S. Safety, it is still a violation of American rights. America has many methods to protect U. S. Citizens; the army, police officers, the F. B. I the C. I. A and the plenty more. Hereford there Is no reason to spy on private tizzies without probable cause, because our protection that we consciously know of is enough. It is in fact a president’s job to protect America by any means following the constitution. According to Bryant Gumball and Gwen elf the bush administration says the law provides the tools needed to pursue the domestic side of the war on terrorism. However people are concerned this law has gone too far and it takes away our constitutional right of freedom of speech and religion (5). Rather if it strips American citizens of their constitutional rights the president can find a new method f protection.
The method isn’t necessary, the fear of terrorism in American citizens have decreased 19% since the 9/1 1 attacks due to all the other protection provided to make Americans feel safe (Calories & Crowley 3). Since the release of this scandal 1 OFF similar to a bully. According to Steve Benson in a political cartoon he drew, the congress and the administration have not part in the spying, while the NSA our overpowering the people, because they are a big and powerful gorilla and the congress and administration can do nothing since they are powerless chimpanzees Benson 2).
U. S citizens are being taken advantage of by the N. S. A and there is nothing they can do. In all the secret monitoring of private citizens the line has been drawn, when American feels that giving away their freedom temporarily to the N. S. A for protection IS okay instead of fighting the issue, deserve no safety (Benson 1). Everyone is born Ninth their natural rights that cannot be stripped from them unless they are incarcerated, in a public/private school system or a similar setting; with these private citizens that it’s not the case.
The government should only be allowed to monitor invoiced felons, not private citizens who have not been suspected of any wrong doing. As American citizens we have to respect out government and their laws, although we have to give up our constitutional rights. According to Bryan Gumball and Gwen ‘fill opposing groups say the act threatens the first fourth, fifth, sixth and fourteenth amendment rights and gives the executive branch sweeping new powers that undermine the bill of rights (6). One statement can make a complete difference, if more and more citizens share their view on government secret surveillance things can change.
Everyone has their right to privacy; America is supposed to be the land of dreams, security and freedom. People immigrate to America to be free instead Americans are not free. American citizens are not free to keep their private lives enclosed in their homes. This is a violation of citizen’s natural rights and is unacceptable. Unlawfully spying is illegal for U. S. Citizens and no one in America should be exempt from this law; not even the government and they should be held accountable for their actions. It is time for American citizens to take a stand in their beliefs.
Essay about Search and Seizure in the Public Schools
1487 WordsNov 10th, 20076 Pages
Search & Seizure in the Public Schools
To fully understand the role and related responsibilities of search and seizure in the public schools, the Constitutional rights of the students and case law must be examined. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 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 intent of the Fourth Amendment is to guarantee security against unreasonable governmental searches. Because school officials are actually…show more content…
The Court ruled that it did not violate students' federal or state constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches. The Court reasoned that the state, as schoolmaster of children, must exercise a degree of supervision and control greater than it could exercise over adults. They also said that public school children have lesser privacy expectations with regard to medical examinations and procedures than the general population, and student athletes have even less legitimate privacy expectation. The school district had immediate and legitimate concern in preventing student athletes from using drugs.
Metal Detector Searches: No case has been brought to the Supreme Court level regarding metal detectors used to search students. In the case, People v. Pruitt , the Illinois appellate court held that searching students entering a school with a metal detector required no individual suspicion. The use of metal detectors should be communicated to all students and parents before implementation.
Police Dog Searches The case of Horton v. Goose Creek I.S.D. held that the use of canines to sniff lockers and cars did not constitute a search. This court also ruled, however, that the use of canines to search students must only be done if there is individualized suspicion. Due to many other issues which could complicate the search, such as allergies,