Description
Assignment Description
You are a police officer assigned to a task force that is investigating major drug trafficking operations in your jurisdiction. As part of the investigative process, a judge has issued a wiretap order for a suspect’s phone. You are assigned the responsibility of monitoring phone conversations, and you overhear the suspect as well as other individuals who may or may not be involved in the drug ring. Before obtaining enough evidence to arrest and prosecute the suspect, you hear evidence related to other types of criminal activity.
Assignment Guidelines
- Address the following in 900–1,200 words:
- What constitutional issues are involved in the scenario that dictates what you can and cannot do related to the evidence of other criminal activity outside the scope of the original wiretap order? Explain.
- If you arrest the other individuals for the crimes not associated with the reasons for the wiretap, what happens to any future evidence that might be obtained from the wiretap? Why?
- If you fail to arrest the other individuals, are there any potential risks involved? Explain you answer.
- Be sure to reference all sources using APA style.
Explanation & Answer
Attached.
Outline
Introduction
Types of Surveillance
The Fourth Amendment Law
Warrantless Wiretap
Individuals Associated with the Wiretap
Consequences of Police Failing to Arrest
Conclusion
References
RUNNING HEAD: PHONE MONITORING CONVERSATIONS
Phone Monitoring Conversations
Name:
Institution
1
PHONE MONITORING CONVERSATIONS
2
Phone Monitoring Conversations
Introduction
Wiretapping is the use of technique used to intercept and monitor mobile conversations.
The technique enables the government to intercept conversations without noticing their presence.
In the beginning of the 20th century, a judicial bias was put in place in such that the Fourth
Amendment violations would only take place if there was real trespassing of a person’s property.
The judicial bias was later overthrown in 1967 in what was called the landmark Katz v. It was
disputed that the interpretation of the 4th amendment was too narrow (Kerr, et al 2012). The
purpose was not to protect a person from a specific location, but to protect them from
unreasonable search. In 1928 there was a case famously known as Olmstead case. The case
stated that as long as the physical space of a person is not interfered with, the fourth Amendment
would not apply. The Olmstead approached was later abandoned and the court adopted a law
which would ensure privacy of a person under investigation (Welply, et al 2012). The
government was supposed to acquire a warrant. The Congress established procedures that would
be used in filling a wiretapping application. All wiretaps were recognized illegal apart from the
ones approved by the court. The wiretaps were issued for various list of offences. The wiretap
was supposed to last for at most 30 days. The wiretapping protection law was extended to the
electronic mail. The law was called the Wiretap Act, whi...
Review
Review
