Supreme Court Decisions - Essay Example

 Are available Supreme Court Decisions equipped to deal with emerging technological advances? Supreme Court decisions are noted to bear both controversial and justifiable establishments. While these technologies are viewed by a majority of law enforcement officers, politicians and the citizens as a key step towards winning the war on crime, major controversies ensure from these technological advances. Many people hope that these advances in technology will go a long way in preventing crime and enhancing law enforcement ability to deal with the threat posed by technologically aided crimes, however, the mere constitutionality of these devices is being questioned on a regular basis. The surfacing of new technologies used in fighting crime and the constitutional questions they raise warrants a new approach to these technologies in trying to protect individual rights while at the same time fighting crime. For the last few decades, the Court system has been struggling with the issue of technological advances and their constitutionality. Courts have not only been cautious of the role played by technological devices, but general public interest and maintaining the rule of law in every scenario. Technological advances involving the use of gun detectors, use of less lethal weapons, monitoring of email communication have sparked controversy all over the U.S. In addition, warrant requirements for searches/seizures in cyberspace have been delved into by the Supreme Court. Use of Gun Detectors Emergence of new technologies such as metal and gun detectors and the test of their constitutionality has led to a fresh overview of the functions of the handgun in the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Courts have always dealt with the issue of weapon searches as they have always been wary of departing from the constitutional requirement that searches can only be conducted in the presence of a warrant occasioned by probable cause. The Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio showed a laxity to institute the prerequisite for conducting a search when the aim of the search is recovery of a hidden gun. The Supreme Court unwillingly relaxed this requirement with a view to uphold Terry’s rights according to the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court acknowledges that weapons searches and examinations of suspects holding illegal guns are paramount to protecting both the public and the police during street interrogations. In addition, the Court approved the “pat down’ system in determining whether a suspect is in possession of a handgun as it saw this system as a less intrusive way of conducting searches. We note that there are currently unlimited weapon searches places at points of entry such as airports and institutions including courthouses and schools. Gun detection in these places is on different contexts, but aims at achieving a universal goal, however, in the course of gun weapons searches, other contraband are discovered, which are later used as evidence against the defendants, even if a gun was not discovered (Johnson, p. 199). The current use of gun detection measures, which are deemed less invasive, such as pat downs are rather ineffective in detection, this warrants the use of metal and gun detectors based on less than probable cause, which has been approved by the Court. The Supreme Court advocates for the use of gun detectors that serve to distinguish those carrying a gun from those who are not while at the same time not providing any additional information on the person being screened. This will ensure law enforcers are able to detect concealed weapons while protecting civil freedom. In street interrogations, the Supreme Court on Terry v. Ohio exemplifies the Fourth Amendment as meaning that seizure or searches, based on probable cause, conducted without issuance of warrants are a violation of a person’s civil liberty and thus the search results are inadmissible in court. While the Court acknowledges that searches based on probable cause may infringe on a person’s right to privacy, an officer must take all necessary precautions to neutralize the threat posed by a person carrying a weapon. Searches conducted at points of entry are centered on ensuring public safety. The Federal Aviation Administration asserts the need for searches at airports to reduce the incidence of hijackings. Metal detectors mainly magnetometers are used in airports together with psychological profiling of potential hijackers (Johnson, p. 201). All passengers are mandated to walk through these metal detectors, but suspects based on the psychological profiling are detained for further questioning. These searches are allowed based on the decisions in Terry v. Ohio, however, in United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court, ruled that only through Terry v. Ohio does the exception of a warrant become justifiable. The Court allows for use of gun detectors in searches, based on the premise that consent for search has been issued. Less-Lethal Weapons Currently, there are a wide range of tools used by law enforcement agents to aid in arresting uncooperative persons. Less-lethal weapons are designed to stop a subject without causing permanent injury or killing them. They are meant to be humane but at the same time have enough power to prevent the subject from escaping. The insistence on police to include less-lethal tools in their arsenals became apparent in the 1980s. The Supreme Court’s decision, in 1985 Tennessee v. Garner states that use of deadly power to arrest an unarmed felon who is not fleeing is unreasonable seizure according to the Fourth Amendment. The Court has distinguished between non lethal and less lethal tools; non lethal tools being those which no matter how they are used cannot result in death of the subject. Less-lethal tools, on the other hand, refer to those tools which are potentially deadly thus warrant caution in administration of these technologies. Less-lethal technologies used controlling subjects include a series of both chemical and physical devices. For instance, the use of sticky and aqueous foam is capable of stopping a person and limiting movement (Scott, p. 100). The foam is administered from a shoulder high trigger which shoots up to 35 feet away. The magnetosphere gun and the thermal gun technology are less-lethal technologies used especially on subjects suffering from mental illness or those under the influence of drugs. The technology allows for stunning a suspect by delivering a force which feels like a blow to the head. Moreover, chemical incapacitants are among the most controversial less-lethal technologies used in apprehending suspects. Here, a drug referred to as Alfentanyl, a surgical anesthetic, which is a strong depressant of the nervous system is administered to restrain a subject. However, another drug, Lofentanyl, is known to have the same incapacitating effect, but is much safer than the latter. Both drugs are administered using the dart mode of delivery (Lewer, p. 235). Less-lethal projectile weapons are also used in controlling subjects. These include beanbags rounds, rubber and wood bullets fired from a 12 gauge to acquire maximum effect while not permanently injuring the subject or causing death. In addition, tasers have slowly gained popularity amongst law enforcement agencies across the U.S. These are handheld devices, which shoot out two wires which lengthen up to 21 feet and have probes on one end. The taser emits an electric voltage of up to 50,000 volts once the probes are in place. This device works on emission of shock through a current that can easily penetrate clothing. This current incapacitates the target while ensuring no harm is done on the officer or other civilians. According to the National Institute of Justice, the taser is the best option when it comes to technologies that effectively control a subject without killing them. The Supreme Court advocates for the use of reasonable force in apprehending suspects, while upholding their Fourth Amendment rights. Breach of these rights results in dismissal of evidence in court. Email Communications In decision making on matters pertaining email communication, the Supreme Court assesses the expectation of privacy in email exchanges between persons. For instance, in determining whether or not the employer is allowed to access the personal emails of an employee in Stengart v. Loving Care Agency Inc., the Court assessed Stengart’s expectation of privacy in the email communications with her lawyer, done via her employer-issued computer. Subsequently, the emails and web pages were saved in the company’s system; after she had left, Stengart sued the company, which in turn tried to use the emails as evidence in litigation. The Court agreed with Stengart’s premise that personal emails cannot be used as evidence as they are private and confidential. Despite the employer having in place policies that stated that it was authorized to review all substances found on the company’s media systems and that emails were not considered private, the Court ruled that the language employed here was ambiguous and lacking against the employer. It was deemed so because the policy monitoring disclosures were not sufficient in informing the employees that the company stored and was able to review copies of employees’ private emails. In addition, the court stated that the company could not use the emails as evidence as it had failed to inform the employees that the company could monitor the contents of employees’ personal emails made from company-issued computers. The Supreme Court holds that expectations of privacy in communications done by email are private and in the event that insufficient monitoring policies are in place, the contents of the personal emails cannot be used as evidence in a court of law. However, the Court implies that despite the language used in such policies, employees’ expectation of privacy should not be squashed. Although the employer may establish lawful monitoring policies in relation to usage of computers and emails in the workplace to protect the company’s profitability and assets, the content of employees’ emails is still deemed private and confidential, therefore, any policy, no matter how unambiguous it may be is unenforceable in a court of law. We, however, note that the Supreme Court allows for admission into evidence, any personal emails retrieved on the basis of a policy, by the employer, permitting occasional personal use of company email systems regarding any personal emails sent via the company’s email accounts (Sharp, p. 165). Warrant Requirements for Searches and Seizures in Cyberspace Through the internet, communication has been improved by erasing physical barriers and improving education and knowledge. Societal rules that uphold privacy in cyberspace do not necessarily apply to the court system. The Supreme Court has a laid back approach in dealing with matters pertaining regulation of internet security and privacy by instead advocating for free speech. Information in cyberspace is susceptible to review; however, warrants have to be obtained to access personal information in the cyberspace. However, we note that warrants may be issued to internet service providers to disclose information considered personal to a court of law pursuit to a court order of subpoena. This is obtained by law enforcement agencies during a civil lawsuit, where personal information in cyberspace is deemed as crucial evidence. However, in order to obtain more information, the government will require a search warrant issued by a judge on the basis of probable cause, but the government may not require a search warrant as a subpoena may be sufficient in providing all the necessary personal information. The USA Patriot Act passed in 2001 by Congress, allows for the government to access records held in cyberspace and in order to accelerate the process of information retrieval from cyberspace, the act of Congress does away with supervision done by other arms of government such as the judiciary. Through this act, the government is allowed to retrieve personal information from cyberspace without seeking a court order or warrant of information seizure. We note that in U.S v. Warshark, the Courts ruled that while an Internet Service Provider (ISP) is able to gain easy access to private emails and other information stored in cyberspace, the government is obligated to obtain a search warrant before conducting any seizure of emails and other cyberspace information. Here, the Court asserts that the expectation of privacy is also observed by ISP and such privacy should thus be accorded to all emails and information held on a remote server. According to the Supreme Court, it is illogical to afford emails lesser Fourth Amendment protection than that afforded to postal mails and phone calls (Sharp, p. 98). Napster Napster is the essence of what is currently referred to as “peer-to-peer’ sharing of files such as music and movies. It allows for users to download and upload files to their personal computers via the Napster system and allow any other person in alternative locations to access the files and retrieve the information contained. Through the Napster system, one can access various works and gain access to electronic copies of any files that another person might have set aside for purposes of loading into the system. In A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc, where Napster was the defendant, the latter did not maintain that it did not have a main computer system capable of storing and uploading files on demand, but rather its users have to use the Napster system to locate ad store files to their computers, it stated that such files were indeed owned by individuals who voluntarily access the Napster system. Here, highly creative and sophisticated software are employed to allow for the duplication, storage and transfer of music files in their MP3 formats, which are effective in the production of recordings of sound and readability formatting. Network connections enable users to download and upload many files at a time which poses the risk of copyright violations. Napster’s system powerful and innovative system of sharing information could easily establish legal issues if files chosen for downloading and uploading are protected by copyright laws and if the person in whose name the copyright has been registered has not given consent for use of the files. This formed the basis of numerous complaints from members of the music industry towards Napster’s system whose argument was that Napster system’s file sharing significantly reduced sales of music held in the files. On this premise, members of the music industry sued Napster Inc., for infringement of their copyright. The court handed out an injunction against Napster’s use of the plaintiffs’ files, but Napster went ahead and appealed where the Ninth Circuit supported the injunction and established that sharing of copyright files was unfair and infringed on the plaintiffs’ copyright rights as stipulated by the Audio Home Recording Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (McCourt and Burkart, p. 346. Essentially, infringement of a person’s or institution’s copyright is the violation of the rights held by the owner by wrongfully utilizing their works without seeking proper permission. In the case against Napster, the courts established that the greatest infringement of copyright was the distribution of copies through the Napster system, an act which is done by the copyright owner through distribution and sale of music copies to the public. The courts noted that sharing of files in Napster mimics the exact activities undertaken by music owners thereby limiting their rights to enjoy the fruits of their works. In addition, duplication of files in the Napster system permitted transmission of the copied files to numerous users through the internet also allowed for storage in personal computers. According to the courts, each sharing, transferring or storage request is a technological way of duplicating a single file and sending it to users in other locations, in the system, it is then safe to assume that Napster creates and infringement of the owners’ copyright mandates with each of these uses. Due to the massive numbers of files and users on the Napster’s system, it was easier to institute legal proceedings against Napster Inc. other than suing all its users (Matthew, p.765). U.S. v. Maxwell The America Online (AOL) submitted personal emails and pictures found in Maxwell’s email site to the Air force office, which latter instituted proceedings against the former for charges of transporting child pornography as a result of pornographic content found in his personal computer and communication of indecent language to another Air Force officer. The court martial found Maxwell guilty of both crimes, after which he appealed. The appellate court determined that Maxwell was allowed the right to expressed privacy in his personal emails, but this was overruled by the issuance of a warrant, which although erroneous in its description of the username, was valid because, in the mind of the FBI agent and the warrant issuer, there was no doubt as to whom the warrant was being issued against (Sharp, p. 56). The child pornographic photos were, therefore, admissible in court, and Maxwell’s transportation of the said pornographic content coupled with his indecent language was used as evidence against him. References Books, R. Law On Music: Copyright. USA: Amazon Books, 2001. Print Diffie, W. Privacy on the Line: The Politics of Wiretapping and Encryption. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2007. Print. Garrett. (n.d.). Super Metal Detectors. Retrieved July 23, 2003, from http://www.supermetaldetectors.com/en-us/dept_195.html  Johnson, R. S. Metal detector searches: An effective means to help keep weapons out of schools. Journal of Law & Education, pp. 197-203. 2000. Print. Lewer, N. The Future of Non-lethal Weapons: Technologies, Operations, Ethics and Law. UK: Routledge, 2002. Print. Matthew, G. Napster Opens Pandora’s Box: Examining How File-Sharing Services Threaten the Enforcement of Copyright on the Internet. Ohio State Law Journal 63: 799. 2001. Print. McCourt, T. and Burkart, P. When Creators, Corporations and Consumers Collide: Napster and the Development of On-line Music Distribution. Media, Culture, & Society 25 (3): 333–350, 2003. Print. Scott, S. H. Sticky foam as a less-than-lethal technology. Sandia National Laboratories: SPIE. pp. 96–103. 1997. Print. Sharp, W. G. Cyberspace and the Use of Force. USA: Ageis Research Corp, 1999. Print. Tyson, J. How metal detectors work. How Stuff Works. Retrieved July 21, 2003, from http://www.howstuffworks.com/metal-detector.htm/printable  Read More