Research and Explore Technological Surveillance and the Law (Essay Sample)

Technological Surveillance and the Law
Name:
Institution:
Date of submission:
Technological Surveillance and the Law
Introduction
Technical surveillance involves close observation by the use of technologically advanced equipment to source information about a particular person or a group of individuals CITATION Ray02 \l 1033 (Raymond, 2002). Powerful cameras and voice transmitter equipment attached to the residential place of the targeted person can be an instance of technological surveillance.
Weeks v the US
Before 1914, the judicial system of the United States, in the execution of its functions, used English precedents. When it came to the admissibility of evidence, illegally obtained evidence could still be admissible save for situations where police agents could break the law to obtain evidence. In 1914, the courts departed from the traditional position concerning illegally gotten evidence CITATION Whi08 \l 1033 (Whitebread & Slobogin, 2008). The Supreme Court’s decision in Weeks v US illustrates the departure from the traditional approach towards evidence obtained in contravention of a fundamental right or freedom. The facts of the case are that the Police entered Fremont Week’s home in an exercise to conduct an unwarranted search. In the process, they found lottery tickets that he used to transport by mail CITATION Wee14 \l 1033 (Weeks v United States, 1914). As a consequence, he was convicted. He appealed for the return of the seized possessions. The issue before the court was whether the seizure of Week’s possessions was a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection of the right to freedom from searches and seizures that are unreasonable in nature. The position of the court was that seizure of Week’s home was in contravention of the constitution. Notably, the decision, in this case, bore significance in that it was the first case to establish the exclusionary rule that states that illegally obtained evidence is prone to exclusion from proceedings of the court.
Olmsted v the US
The issue before the court, in this case, was whether recordings of wiretapped conversations over telephone could be regarded as illegally obtained evidence at law and hence a violation of the previous exclusionary rule. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Roy Olmstead and seventy other persons had their telephone conversation tapped. The subject of the conversation was a plot to conduct illegal business in contravention of the National Prohibition Act by unlawfully transporting processed alcohol. He was successfully convicted.
Katz v the Unite States
Katz v the US was a case whereby police officers, acting on suspicion, attached an eavesdropping device to a public phone used by Katz and several other people. They had suspected that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone clients stationed in other states. He was thereafter convicted an eight count indictment of transmitting wagering information from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston. He appealed, but the court rejected the appeal arguing that there was no physical intrusion to the telephone booth. The issue before the court was whether do the provisions of the Fourth Amendment concerning the protection against unreasonable seizures and searches require the police officers to obtain search warranties to wiretap public operated telephone booth. The court ruled that Katz was entitled to the protection against his conversation. Further, the court stressed that the Fourth Amendment prot...