The United States vs Jones - Research Paper Example

However, arguments emerged because the court used evidence from wiretaps, search incidences on traffic stop as well as placement of GPS on Jones vehicle for 4weeks until his interdiction (Totenberg). With respect to the law, these were a violation of the right of an individual. The argument by Jones seems realistic since indeed the FBI violated his right in respect to the legal law on the fourth amendment (Totenberg). The police ought to acquire a warrant prior to the placement of any tracking devices on a suspect to ensure that the laws are not violated.

The police have the obligation to keep law and order and should therefore serve as examples to the public. In attaching any tracking devices to a suspect’s vehicle, it becomes a violation of law and action should be taken against the police officers who do not pursue protocol. According to the fourth amendment, liberties that are liberty to privacy and liberty to privacy from arbitrary invasion are protected. It states that a search should be carried out when one violates a sensible anticipation of privacy while a seizure is the hindrance with an individual possessory concern in possessions.

A person usually is seized if the police or any enforcement personnel use force to restrain a person that is if it seems reasonable in a similar situation. The law enforcement workforce are however restricted from any irrational searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment outlaws indiscriminate searches, except unusual situations place the community in danger. The claimant ought to contain a justifiable expectation of confidentiality at the searched locality. This expectation must meet up mutually the subjective and objective assessment of rationality.

The subjective assessment needs the claimant to anticipate privacy legitimately, and the objective assessment entail that, given the circumstance, a rational person in a comparable situation also would have anticipated privacy. Order to keep away from illegitimately searching or seizing possessions, law enforcement officeholder normally acquire warrant. They must demonstrate probable reason, supported by pledge or affirmation, and express in specify the place they will investigate and the things they will confiscate.

A judge may possibly find apparent reason only by probing the entirety of the situation. According to an oral argument by Michael R. Dreeben on behalf of the petitioner, in the utilization of GPS and wiretaps in thecae of Jones, it is a violation of the fourth amendment while in the case of Knotts, the fourth amendment was not infringed because the police used visual and beeper to survey him. Michael argues with Dreeben on various cases in which the police did not infringe the laws in support of the petitioner.

The oral argument provides the various instances in which the police have managed to interdict suspects without the violation of the fourth amendment. The oral argument presents various issues concerning the fourth amendment and its implementation within law enforcement organizations. In the oral argument, Dreeben suggests that the court should institute a suspicion standard, which enables the police to follow suspects on public roadways, and allow them to conduct visually, as well as allow them to investigate leads and tips if the circumstances have no possible cause (Alderson 26).

Dreeben also suggested that the police should probably use the GPS during the early periods of any investigation that is before