- The war on terror was responded to by projecting U.S. military power on a global scale. In the months following the attacks, the administration was forcefully evicted.
2. The roving wiretaps seem in contradiction to the fourth amendment of the constitution deals with the protection of unreasonable search and seizure. To avoid the increasing incidences of illegal search and seizure the court came up with the concept of the exclusionary rule. Exclusionary Rule is a process where the pieces of evidence that are collected illegally and are in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in the criminal trial against the victim of these illegal search and seizure. The exclusionary rights apply only to the Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases and it does not apply to the violation of any other constitutional right mentioned in the Bill of Rights. For example, in the case of US v. Leon, the Supreme Court declared that exclusionary rule is used and created as a judicial remedy to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights. Hence, it did not include any other constitutional right in it. In case the US v. Patane, which includes violation of Miranda Rights, the Supreme Court declared that the self- incrimination clause has its own exclusionary rule and thus no exclusionary rule applied to Fifth Amendment or any other constitutional amendment violation except Fourth Amendment
3. “Sneak and Peek” as a viable law enforcement technique and reviews court cases that have addressed the legal issues involved in the execution of such warrants. The Fourth Amendment provides the right for the people to protect their properties against unreasonable searches and seizures. The law is to protect the people’s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusion from the government. Most warrantless searches are prohibited under the fourth amendment but there are certain exceptions. Warrantless searches and seizures of properties are not illegal if the objects are in plain view. The seizure of properties in an open field also is not a violation of Fourth Amendment. In this case police collected the samples from the air and it is in plain view and collected from an open field. Hence the police did not violate Fourth Amendment; the seizure of air samples is legal and the company cannot suppress the evidence.
