Shanghai Commercial History - Essay Example

? Thoughts Response to question Yes, I agree with the that the definition of search should be changed) Having witnessed many complicated scenarios where the police have violated the right to privacy, we cannot let the status quo remain. This is because most of the American citizens are not enjoying their lives to the fullness as they are subjected to an environment that makes them unsafe. With the current definition of search and its consequences, it is clear that it needs some changes. This is because the police officers and other security personnel have tampered a lot with the people’s privacy in the name of searching for relevant security information. The search that can be acceptable among all the people should define clearly what is involved and what is not. This will save the members of society from the intentional interference by the police. The current use of domestic drones has risked the people’s privacy a great deal (Lyle, 2012). Since they are very small and invisible, they can be anywhere anytime. This makes people insecure as their most private details can be easily accessed. The police have been trespassing people’s private places without and searched all places without permission from the owner (Supreme Court of the United States, 2012). They have as well seized private properties in the name of being abandoned. This is not lawful as it is against the rights of citizens. It tortures the minds of law abiding citizens as it does not differentiate between criminals and the obedient citizens. Through this form of search in place, many innocent people have been held responsible for the crimes they never committed (Orin, 2011). This is because if anything forbidden by the law is found in a curb, the immediate residents are held responsible. As the law even maintains that accused person is innocent until proved guilty, the police should wait for the permission from the property owners. The searches which are not permitted acts as if the suspect is already a criminal which is against the law (Supreme Court of the United States, 2012). This definition of search was designed before the fourth amendment of the USA constitution which differentiates a reasonable search from a brutal search. The new boundaries that have been established so as to restrict unreasonable search should be adhered to. This will definitely lead to a better meaning of search and hence a new definition. Response to question 2 I agree with this paragraph. The search which has no boundaries is likely to retrieve people’s privacy. This is because it does no abide with the directives of the fourth amendment which states that people should be secure in their persons, effects, papers and houses (Orin, 2011). Any search which does not guarantee people these forms of privacy is classified as intrusion. The boundaries that should be put in place are those which will improve the security of the nation while protecting the privacy rights of the people. The boundaries to be observed in searches should ensure that the unreasonable searches and seizures are not allowed. This will ensure that people’s privacy is effectively respected. These are the boundaries that should be observed in the modern definition of search. As the governments cannot stop collecting information for security reasons, this should be done in a way that respects people’s privacy (Orin, 2011). The use of domestic drones though should be restricted; it should not be eliminated completely because they are crucial in maintaining security (Lyle, 2012). Other technological applications that collect information should not be fixed in private areas so as to avoid collection of information that violates people’s privacy. This way the current definition of search will be the most accurate and beneficial to protect the privacy of all law abiding citizens. This calls for the maintenance of the definition and its application so as to enable the security personnel to respect the privacy of all individuals by making sure that unreasonable searches are stopped. Response to question 3 I agree with the statement of the paragraph. The rule that is defined constitutionally is widely acceptable and, therefore, it poses no fear in its execution. The case of Exclusionary Rule which was designed to protect people from unlawful and unreasonable search is complicated when it comes to application. This is because it claims that the evidence from unreasonable search should not be used against a suspect but it is not a suspect’s right to be exempted (Orin, 2011). For this law to be applied in the good faith, it should be thoroughly defined. This definition should include the information that is acceptable and the one which is not. This will make sure that the officers limit themselves to the searches that are acceptable by the constitution so as to gather information that is acceptable in the courts as well (Orin, 2011). The current state of this law is beyond the understanding of all people. This is because the exceptions vary greatly from case to case and from state to state. For any law to be acceptable should lead to consistent ruling from state to state and from court to court. The exclusionary law for this case needs to be defined constitutionally so as to serve as the lead to the officers in their operations. This will facilitate officers understanding of what is expected and stick to the guidelines proposed. Response to question 4 I agree with the paragraph. My agreement comes after considerations on the working of the exclusionary rule. The law is likely to throw away any case whose evidence went against the privacy of the affected individual. This is risky to the security of the society as many criminals may be released. The law therefore should have exceptions so as to consider the factors that led to the use of the method of search as well as the sensitivity of the case presented before the court. Some criminals may use sophisticated means that cannot be captured under some general investigatory measures. There should be proper ways to apply the exclusionary law. These proper ways should ensure that the rights of both the suspect and the society are considered simultaneously (Orin, 2011). Through this, the exceptions of the law will be defined correctly as well as their areas of its application. This also will facilitate understanding among the junior officers and become better professionals. From this point of view the exclusionary rule should be applied technically so as to serve the interest of all the people involved appropriately. The rule as it stands, risks many things including the lives of the police. This is because the some investigation measures acceptable by the exclusionary rule are dangerous if applied to some extreme criminals. References Lyle, D. (2012). Opinion recap: Tight limit on police GPS use. Retrieved June 22, 2013 from http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/01/opinion-recap-tight-limit-on-police-gps-use/ Orin, S. K (2011) Good faith, new law, and the scope of the exclusionary rule. Retrieved June 22, 2013 from http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/99-4/Kerr.PDF Supreme Court of the United States (2012) United States v. Jones certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit. Retrieved June 22, 2013 from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf Read More