https://padlet.com/prupp/rupp302 Read each scenario and respond en-us 2020-09-17 15:57:41 UTC 2020-09-17 19:18:14 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.net/icons/png/1f46e-2640.png prupp https://padlet.com/prupp/rupp302/wish/755851066 A federal agent, suspicious that Danny Kyllo was growing marijuana, used a thermal-imaging device to scan his home. The imaging was to be used to determine if the amount of heat emanating from the home was consistent with the high-intensity lamps typically used for indoor marijuana growth. Subsequently, the imaging revealed that relatively hot areas existed, compared to the rest of the home. Based on informants, utility bills, and the thermal imaging, a federal magistrate judge issued a warrant to search Kyllo's home. The search unveiled growing marijuana. After Kyllo was indicted on a federal drug charge. Are heat-detecting devices on private homes an unconstitutional search in violation of the 4th Amendment?

]]> 2020-09-17 15:59:30 UTC https://padlet.com/prupp/rupp302/wish/755851066 prupp https://padlet.com/prupp/rupp302/wish/755945769 A large metropolis institutes a “Stop. Question and Frisk” policy to help fight drugs and violent crime. In a dangerous part of the inner-city the police use this policy to stop and question some young minority men wearing known gang apparel who were gathered outside a market. The market is in a location known for drug trafficking. The police force the young men to face the wall and after
searching their person they find several illegal handguns, drugs and other paraphernalia. At the trial the young men's attorneys each claim that their client’s constitutional rights were violated. However, the police claim they had clear probable cause and indeed were able to get guns and drugs off the
streets. All the young men are convicted of dealing drugs and possession of illegal firearms. Is this tactic constitutional?]]> 2020-09-17 16:18:17 UTC https://padlet.com/prupp/rupp302/wish/755945769 prupp https://padlet.com/prupp/rupp302/wish/755987830 After the terrorist attack in New York on 9/11/2001 the federal government instituted many new airport security procedures. The newly created government agency, the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) is tasked with searching passengers’ baggages and even their own persons for possible terrorist threats. Passengers are required to take off shoes and belts, lift up shirts and
receive pat downs on prescribed occasions. Passengers are also required to enter a body scanning machine that allows TSA authorities to examine their body's in a very detailed way. Johnny is traveling to New Jersey for a conference. He complies with placing his items in the x-ray machine and volunteered to go through the metal detector, but Johnny refuses to take off his shoes or his belt
or receive a pat down. He claims he has done nothing wrong and therefore does not have to comply to these intrusive invasions into his privacy. The TSA informs him that if he wishes to fly he must comply. After some arguing and commotion, Johnny attempts to force his way through the TSA checkpoints and is detained. He is charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Is this a violation of his 4th amendment rights?]]> 2020-09-17 16:29:39 UTC https://padlet.com/prupp/rupp302/wish/755987830 prupp https://padlet.com/prupp/rupp302/wish/756036114 In the Southwest a certain county sheriff who has a reputation for being tough on illegal immigration detains a undocumented immigrant at a traffic stop and confines him in a holding cell for over 120 days as the state and federal authorities attempt to facilitate his deportation. No official charges have
been given other than the fact that the man is illegal. The individual refusing to speak english, does not give his name or his address. The sheriff suspects it’s because there are more people he knows that are also illegal. The individual is given bread and water and is not allowed to call anyone and is
in a cell alone. Are the individual's due process rights of the 6th and 8th amendment being violated?]]> 2020-09-17 16:40:01 UTC https://padlet.com/prupp/rupp302/wish/756036114 prupp https://padlet.com/prupp/rupp302/wish/756040541 Alice Watergate has lived in her home of over fifty years, but times are changing and her once small town is growing by leaps and bounds. She now finds herself and her property smack dab in the middle of progress. The city wishes to build a new shopping mall and the state wishes to add some new interstate roads, but her house is in the way. Both the city and the state have contacted her and
offered her the market value of her estate. She refuses all their offers. After a long drawn out process and warning by both the municipality and the state, Alice is forcibly evicted from her property and is compensated based on the average cost of a home like hers. Her house is destroyed and construction on the roads and shopping mall commence before Alice can take her case to trial. She
tries to seek more damages through a civil trial, citing the emotional turmoil this situation has caused her. The judge who is appointed by the governor, throws out her case claiming she was already fairly compensated for the property. Are Alice Watergate's due process rights being violated?]]> 2020-09-17 16:41:00 UTC https://padlet.com/prupp/rupp302/wish/756040541