The topic for this paper focuses on the intersection between the Fourth Amendment right of people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the search capabilities now available to law enforcement agencies via emerging dynamic technological innovations.One of the underlying issues in this discussion is the Exclusionary Rule(which we shall be addressing in this class later in the semester. This Exclusionary Rule, applied to the states by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio, excludes, at the time of trial, any evidence obtained by law enforcement officers in violation of the Fourth Amendment.As law enforcement agencies demonstratean increased interest in the use of drones in policing activities,the issue will arise as to whether the use of drones by such agencies, in the absence of a warrant having been issued, violate the Fourth Amendments prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Based on the limitations imposed on law enforcement agencies by the Fourth Amendment(as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court), and the capabilities available to law enforcement officers via Drone technology:1. carefully analyze the Courts decisions in the specifically identified cases, as well as the additional cases dealing with the Exclusionary Rule found in the casebook;2. briefly, very briefly summarize the most significant legal issues on each side of the debate([a] should law enforcement agencies be able to utilize Drone technology without a warrant, or[b]should a warrant be required prior to law enforcements use of such devices,and why?). (in your analysis,carefully consider the issue as to whether Drones are similar or dissimilar to the other forms of aircraftdiscussed in the cases);3. CONCLUSION: based on your research, and based on the previous holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Search and Seizure cases, which side of Drone issue represents the stronger position in light the Supreme Courts rulings in cases dealing with the Search and Seizure issues? Justify your conclusion with careful analysis and rational, logical reasoning; and4. as to the Conclusion, merely stating that both sides have strong and essentially equal positions is not an acceptable outcomeyou must articulately adopt one side of the issue, providing rational justification,supported by legal reasoning,for that conclusion. A failure to reach adefinitive conclusion on one side or the other of the issue,will result in a markedly lower grade for this paper
Neither an Abstract nor an Executive Summary is required
AVOID numerous, as well as,lengthy quotations from the research articles relied-upon. The reader is interested in YOUR analysis of the issues identified, not mere quotations from the materials relied upon.
Resources only from thef ollowing decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court:California v. Ciraolo,476 U.S.207 (1986)Florida v. Riley,488 U.S. 445(1989)United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]