Claim
My position as per the application of FISA and the Fourth Amendment is that the FISA violates the fourth amendment requirement. This is in line with the fact that the Fourth Amendment Act operates on the basis of the exclusionary rule and revolves around the search and seizure whereas the FISA is seen to violate the exclusionary rule.
Background
The Fourth Amendment Act was put in place following the dissenting argument at the time of arrest by the police officers. This is pegged on the basis that the exclusionary rule which is applied where admissibility of the unlawfully acquired evidence to the forceful search and a subsequent seizure of properties will not be allowed in court unless a warrant of arrest and court order are issued (Cohen, 164). This amendment is also founded on the requirement of the Probable Cause. The Fourth Amendment Act is operated under three fundamental issues; the composition of the Probable Cause for the actions of those that are alleged to have committed the offence. Another basis upon which this Act is applied is on what as per court of law will constitute the search and the seizure. The other vital issue how to approach the cases of the Fourth Amendment Act violation.
The FISA Act came into existence as a result of the unlawful action of President Richard to get the information about the political activists via his plotted spies. He used the government resources to search for such information was seen to be in total violation of the Fourth Amendment Act (LaFave, 243). The main basis for the establishment of FISA was to ensure that the national security was protected alongside the oversight in terms of the judicial and congressional on the surveillance actions of abroad entities United States citizens.
In a total contradiction to the Fourth amendment requirement, FISA comes with a package where such electronic evidence unlawfully acquired in the foreign states will be accepted and used in a court so long as there is a proof of the existence of probable cause. It is upon these premises that I support the statement that FISA is in total contradiction with the Fourth Amendment Act.
Supporting argument
FISA in this context is in total violation of the Fourth Amendment Act. This is because it has some of its sections permitting the physical and electronic surveillance searches. These searches are permitted to be undertaken, and the evidence brought to a court for admissibility and even without a court order as strictly outlined by the Fourth Amendment Act which would have otherwise excluded such unlawfully obtained evidences against the terrorist outside America. This argument hence is in line of my firm position to support that, FISA violates the Fourth amendment Act. There must be a Proof of the probable cause done by the government to show that the foreign actions done outside America have a direct threat on the security of America.
In addition to the permission of the Electronic Surveillance, FISA also violates the Fourth Amendment Act via the permission of the Physical search. This has also formed my basis for supporting the argument since it is a fundamental requirement by the Fourth Amendment Act that one should not intrude into the other person’s items including the physical material or the private information of an individual or institution without following the necessary procedure (Taslitz, 267). Applicability of FISA is permitted to get such information in violation of the procedure as long as; it is seen as a possible threat to the America state security. The intelligence officials will thus physically search those that are suspected to have stayed in the country as spies for some negative attitudes such as the need to plan for the possible countries attack.
Opposing argument
The application of the exclusionary rule has a lot of shortcomings. This is because there is a possibility of the arrested persons to destroy the evidences that would otherwise be used against them. Following this, there is a strong opposition against the applicability of the Fourth Amendment Act. Some might hence accept the need for a search forcefully and subsequent seizure of the properties (Woody, 265). These evidences can thus form a strong case against the offender. It is hence not always applicable to apply the need for a court order and a warrant of arrest. In some situation where one is caught doing the alleged unlawful act, it would be an injustice to let search people go without physically being searched and brought to book for the committed unlawful offence. In this regard, the application of the FISA may be seen to override the Fourth Amendment Act in a court of law. Despite the admissibility of the FISA evidence, in this context, some government officials may use this act for the wrong purpose and intentionally acquire unwanted information.
Conclusion
The main objective for the formation of the fourth amendment will be fully at risk if the intelligence officials are allowed to infringe on the non-American who stay in the state using the FISA. Even though it is said that the electronic surveillance information collected will remain the secrecy of the state, this information has been leaked by such officials who intentionally hide under the law and end up collecting unnecessary information for their own purposes. The paper has thus exploited the need to harmonize this act and the fourth amendment (Wittes, 430). My stand is in total support of the argument that the FISA violates the rights of the non-Americans and that such unlawfully collected evidence should not be admitted in the FISA court.
Work Cited
Cohen, Elliot D. Mass Surveillance and State Control: The Total Information Awareness Project. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Print
LaFave, Wayne R. Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson/West, 2004. Print
Taslitz, Andrew E. Reconstructing the Fourth Amendment: A History of Search and Seizure, 1789-1868. New York: New York University Press, 2006. Print.
Wittes, Benjamin. Legislating the War on Terror: An Agenda for Reform. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 2009. Print.
Woody, Robert H. Search and Seizure: The Fourth Amendment for Law Enforcement Officers. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 2006. Print.
