Warrant less wire tapping violation of rights - Research Proposal Example

8 September Warrant less wire tapping violation rights The fourth amendment protects people’s rights to privacy, by establishing unconstitutionality of unreasonable search and seizure, unless a warrant exists (Duke University 1). Obtained evidence, through violation of the fourth amendment and based on the Fifth Amendment, is inadmissible in a judicial proceeding (Maclin 26). The contemporary environment, with its technological applications that include telecommunication and ability to store and retrieve associated information, establishes factors that never existed during formulation of the amendments.

These influenced the decision in the case of Katz v. the United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) in which wire-tapping was identified as unreasonable search that should only be conducted with a warrant (Duke University 1). There are, however other legal provisions that warrant wire-tapping violation of rights that the fourth amendment provides for, based on the 1967 judicial interpretation. “Inevitable-discovery doctrine and the good-faith doctrine” are examples that compromise the fourth and fifth amendments’ protection of privacy and application of associated information as evidence against a subject (Hess & Orthmann 95).

It is therefore necessary to investigate validity of such exceptions and the proposed study will investigate the following research question.Should more wire-tapping violation rights be warranted? The study will use survey design and collect data through focus group. The group will consist of two sets of people: defense layers with a minimum of ten years experience and experience in a wire tapping case, and professors in human rights law. Discussion will focus on the participants’ knowledge on wire-tapping violation of rights and their opinion on validity of existing and possible laws that allows for wire-tapping violation of rights.

Data will be analyzed qualitatively.Works citedDuke University. “Fourth amendment rights and electronic communications.” Duke University. N.d. Web. September 8, 2013. < https://www.cs.duke.edu/~chase/cps49s/carnivore-history.html>.Maclin, Tracey. The supreme court and the fourth amendment’s exclusionary rule. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print. Hess, Karen & Orthmann, Christine. Criminal investigation. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.