John Doe is a 51-year-old male who lives in a home located in the middle of an 80-acre pasture in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) flew a drone holding a Thought Recorder (TR9) over the pasture owned by Doe. The drone was flown 35 feet above Doe and he did not notice it while the surveillance was being conducted since it was camouflaged to blend in with the sky and clouds. The authorities used the drone for three hours to monitor him while Doe was mowing his lawn. For Doe’s criminal case, the federal district court, the court of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government for all counts. The defendant, John Doe, was found guilty and convicted of murder. The evidence used to convict the defendant of murder was done by use of theTR9 device.
The search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees privacy and protects the people from unreasonable search and seizures. This amendment sets standards for the regulation of the American government. This amendment states that the people are secure in their persons and houses. The actions that were conducted by the government constituted an intrusion as well as an illegal search and seizure. It was a warrantless search since the government did not obtain a warrant prior to conducting the search on Doe. A search warrant should have been obtained prior to using the TR9. By flying the drone with the TR9 attached to it, this caused a privacy law violation since there was no warrant issued to conduct this search. When the government watched Doe while he was on his property and in his home this was a violation of the privacy law. The government hacked into the Doe’s cable television and internet service providers. They gathered information from the defendant’s computer and television was presented and used at his trial.
The information that was retrieved with the use of the TR9 was Doe’s thought’s as well as information from his computer and cable television was an intrusion of Doe’s privacy in his home and was an unreasonable search and seizure since the search was conducted by the FBI without a search warrant. The government contacted the defendant and had posed as the manufacturer of the Scrambler that Doe owns in his home. They stated that the call was made to Doe to persuade him not to use his Scrambler for a few days so they could perform a surveillance of him on his property with the use of the TR9. These actions by the government constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of Doe’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. The surveillance performed by the authorities was a Fourth Amendment search and it is considered unreasonable without a warrant or Doe’s consent. John Doe is allowed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy just like every other American citizen per the Fourth Amendment. A warrant was issued following the violations and was obtained because of the information that was gathered by the government’s illegal surveillance with the use of the drone and the TR9. validity of the established warrant In the case Kyllo v. United States, the authorities used a thermal-imaging device to conduct a search on Kyllo and his personal property. The use of this device constituted a violation to the Fourth Amendment by the government since the search of his home was conducted without a warrant and it was unreasonable.
A warrant was needed to use the thermal-imaging device required a warrant to monitor the home for radiation of heat. According to Justice Scalia for Kyllo’s case, he stated that the surveillance that was conducted was a search since it was unknowable because there was no physical intrusion with the thermal-imaging device. He also stated that the search was unreasonable since there was no warrant issued for the search. Like Kyllo, Doe had no knowledge of the search that was conducted by the government since it was not an intrusion that was physical. The protection of privacy is guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and the government is not allowed to erode this protection with the use of technology. The use of technology such as the TR9 and thermal-imaging devices is unconstitutional since these devices detect activities that are personal and are occurring in areas that are private such as their homes. The Fourth Amendment protects the home against physical invasion by the government so the individual(s) living in the home have an expectation of privacy. The information provided during the criminal prosecution of John Doe should have been excluded since this information that was obtained by the FBI violated his constitutional Fourth Amendment right. The FBI did not take the appropriate steps when they gathered the information since it was illegally obtained and should be inadmissible in Court for this case.
Even though there are advances in technology, government officials should not be allowed to violate the constitutional rights of the American citizens. In the case Riley v. United States, Riley’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when police officials used a helicopter to view his greenhouse located in the backyard to see if there was marijuana without a search warrant. A warrant was obtained because of the observation that was made when the helicopter was flown above the greenhouse. According to Justice Brennan, he stated that the actions of the police officers had violated Riley’s rights for reasonable expectation of privacy. The self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees and protects the American people and that no person in a criminal case shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves. The authorities used the TR9 for three hours while Doe was mowing his lawn to record his thoughts. There were thoughts that Doe was having in his mind; they were not actions The information gathered by the FBI with the use of the TR9 was used against Doe for his criminal prosecution and resulted in conviction of murder. The governments action of using this information during Doe’s trial constituted a violation of the compelled self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. The information that was found on Doe by the use of the TR9 should have not been allowed to be used as evidence by the prosecution during his trial.
The TR9 is a technological device that allows government officials to conduct illegal searches which leads to self-incrimination against the American citizens. Government officials should not be permitted to use the TR9 since the people of America are protected by the Fifth Amendment which protects against self-incrimination and having the right to remain silent. Doe should not be convicted because a device recorded his thoughts and he did not speak a word. Even though Doe did not speak a word, he is found guilty and convicted by the Court because of self-incrimination that was caused by this device that read his thought process. In addition, the government’s actions constituted a violation of John Doe’s constitutional rights of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. He was not protected by the illegal actions that were committed by the government and was convicted of murder because of them. According to the exclusionary rule, it prohibits the government in using evidence that was collected by violating the United States Constitution. This rule was not followed by the FBI when they conducted an unreasonable search and seizure of Doe’s cable television and internet searches and caused self-incrimination by recording his thoughts with the TR9 device. In the case Commonwealth v Rivers, the defendant was charged with two counts of felony assault and battery due to a group altercation that had occurred on Martha’s Vineyard outside of a party. The defendant was coerced by the police officer to cooperate and give a statement to avoid a felony charge. The coercion by the police officer caused the defendant to make involuntary statements that caused self-incrimination.
The involuntary statements made by the defendant were admissible in Court. The defendant’s Fifth Amendment constitutional rights which were the self-incrimination clause and the due process clause was violated. The order that had denied the defendant’s motion to suppress his statements to the police officer was reversed. In conclusion, the actions of the government have constituted a violation of John Doe’s constitutional rights which were the search and seizure Fourth Amendment as well as the due process clause and the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment rights. The evidence that was found during the search and seizure by the FBI should not be allowed admissible in Court for the criminal case of John Doe since his rights were violated by the government. The search and seizure that was conducted by the government was illegal since they did not obtain a search warrant or Doe’s consent prior to these actions. The decision of the Court to convict Doe was based on the evidence that was obtained by the warrantless use of the TR9 device which violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The evidence found compelled him to be a ‘witness against himself in a criminal case.’ John Doe’s conviction should be vacated because of the constitutional violations that were committed by the government.