United States v. Garcia Case Study
Name
Institution
United States v. Garcia Case Study
美国法律案例研究论文代写 A close analysis of this case reveals that the police saw no need of acquiring a warranty under their action of tracking Garcia.
Search and Seizure
A close analysis of this case reveals that the police saw no need of acquiring a warranty under their action of tracking Garcia. On the other hand, Garcia argues against the admissibility of the evidence with the police posing that it was acquired illegally. And without following the due course of the act. Therefore Garcia seeks dismissal of the evidence against him. Being a compelling case as it is, it can be interpreted using both extremes of the law. That is arguing for admissibility of the evidence. And against it terming it as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, therefore, the unreasonable search was conducted.美国法律案例研究论文代写
Subject to the Fourth Amendment, for any search and seizures the investigative body must have a reasonable or probable cause. The reasonable cause of action can be defined as sufficient facts to justify the action of arrest, search, seizure or all. Further, in this context, probable cause is the certainty that a particular person is about or has committed a crime (Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 554-55, 98 S. Ct. 1970, 56 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1978). The Fourth Amendment clearly defines what constitutes search and seizures. What constitutes probable cause for the search and seizures and how the violation of the Fourth Amendment should be solved.
译文：
搜查和扣押 美国法律案例研究论文代写
对本案的仔细分析表明，警方认为没有必要在追踪加西亚的行动下获得保修。另一方面，加西亚反对证据的可采性，警方认为证据是非法获得的。并且没有遵循适当的行为。因此，加西亚寻求驳回对他不利的证据。作为一个令人信服的案例，它可以用法律的两个极端来解释。那是争论证据的可采性。并反对将其称为违反第四修正案，因此，进行了不合理的搜索。
根据第四修正案，对于任何搜查和扣押，调查机构必须有合理或可能的原因。合理的诉因可以定义为足以证明逮捕、搜查、扣押或全部行动是正当的事实。此外，在这种情况下，可能的原因是确定某个特定的人正在犯罪或已经犯罪（Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 US 547, 554-55, 98 S. Ct. 1970, 56 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1978). 第四修正案明确定义了搜查和扣押的构成。什么构成了搜查和扣押的可能原因，以及应如何解决违反第四修正案的问题。
Looking at the investigative side,
they view their action to not amount to a violation of the fundamental rights as spelled out in the Fourth Amendment. The question that arises is how did the defendant conclude that they were not in the violation of the constitution? On their part, they can argue. That since there was no restriction to the movement on the part of Garcia and that of his car, it, therefore, did not constitute a search and seizure.美国法律案例研究论文代写
There were guided by the precedent formed from the previous cases which ruled that the mere tracking of the person using a car. And cameras affixed in the street or the use of the satellite fail to constitute a privacy violation [United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 284-85, 103 S. Ct. 1081, 75 L. Ed. 2d 55 (1983)]. The conflict arises because the search involved advanced technology of Global Positioning Service. Which was not covered by the amendment and no provision to contemplate on the course of action.
Further, these court cases which formed a precedent of the application of the above reasoning depicted that, following a person through satellite imaging does not amount to search and seizure. Also, that using cameras on the roads to trail the movement of a suspect does not constitute a search. The precedents also further state that when the police are doing his/ her investigation following the suspect from a distance does not amount to a search. Through precedented implication, the general view is that they did not, therefore, violate the Fourth Amendment.
译文：
看调查方面，
他们认为他们的行为并不构成对第四修正案规定的基本权利的侵犯。出现的问题是，被告是如何得出他们没有违反宪法的结论的？就他们而言，他们可以争论。由于加西亚及其汽车的行动不受限制，因此不构成搜查和扣押。
之前的案例所形成的先例是指导，该先例裁定仅跟踪使用汽车的人。并且在街上安装摄像头或使用卫星不能构成侵犯隐私的行为 [United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 284-85, 103 S. Ct. 1081, 75 L. 编辑。 2d 55 (1983)]。冲突的产生是因为搜索涉及全球定位服务的先进技术。修正案未涵盖其中，也没有规定考虑行动过程。
此外，这些构成应用上述推理先例的法院案件表明，通过卫星成像跟踪一个人并不等于搜查和扣押。此外，在道路上使用摄像头追踪嫌疑人的行踪并不构成搜查。判例还进一步指出，当警察进行调查时，远距离跟踪嫌疑人并不等同于搜查。通过先例的暗示，普遍的观点是，他们并没有因此违反第四修正案。
So what constitutes a search or a seizure?
As earlier defined, the Fourth Amendment states that search is a physical intrusion of the personal space or property with or without the search warranty or consent, with the aim to investigate the person or property. In the case of Garcia, the personal space means touching the person or the property that the person attach ownership. The law also defines the right of the person not to have his/her person or property searched without own consent or written order of the court or the probable cause. The law also protects the privacy of any individual, and therefore no search could be conducted without the person’s consent or court order. However, there are exemptions to the search which have to be proven as reasonable to take action as it was because it was not practiced to get the warrant or have reasonable suspicion of the criminal activity.
译文：
那么什么构成搜查或扣押呢？ 美国法律案例研究论文代写
如前所述，第四修正案规定，搜查是对个人空间或财产的物理侵犯，无论是否有搜查保证或同意，目的是调查个人或财产。 在加西亚的情况下，个人空间意味着接触该人或该人所拥有的财产。 法律还规定了未经本人同意或法院书面命令或可能的原因，个人不得对其人身或财产进行搜查的权利。 法律还保护任何个人的隐私，因此未经个人同意或法院命令不得进行搜查。 但是，搜查有一些例外情况，必须证明采取行动是合理的，因为搜查并不是为了获得搜查令或对犯罪活动有合理的怀疑。
On the other hand,
seizures are the interference with the person’s freedom of possession in his/her property. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a person’s right to his/her property is reasonably interfered with. Or freedom is reasonably interfered with. Both the search and seizure were the primary considerations in the case.美国法律案例研究论文代写
It is apparent that the Fourth Amendment seeks to remedy the problem of human right violation. Moreover, as such, the law does not apply discriminatively but rather equally unless the court direct otherwise like wear of tracking device by the rape convict who has completed their terms to keep track of their movement. For this reason, Garcia has not excluded that provision of the law. That is, his human rights as stipulated in the human rights statue and the Fourth Amendment were still in application. Thus, any person who tempt to act in a manner to infringe his rights he was entitled to constitutional protection.美国法律案例研究论文代写
译文：
另一方面，
扣押是对个人对其财产的拥有自由的干扰。 当一个人对其财产的权利受到合理干扰时，就会发生不合理扣押。 或者自由受到了合理的干扰。 搜查和扣押都是本案的主要考虑因素。
很明显，第四修正案旨在解决侵犯人权的问题。 此外，因此，除非法院以其他方式指示已完成条款以跟踪其行踪的强奸犯佩戴跟踪设备，否则法律不具有歧视性，而是平等地适用。 因此，加西亚并未排除该法律规定。 也就是说，他在人权法和第四修正案中规定的人权仍然有效。 因此，任何企图以侵犯其权利的方式行事的人都有权获得宪法保护。
In that regard, in his defense, Garcia cited the constitutional violation of his right to privacy.美国法律案例研究论文代写
Although the search did not amount to physical touch or interference with his daily activities, it amounted to the violation of his private space and privacy which also protected by the law. Tracking his movement using a GPS tracking device itself crossed to his private space. In the instance given above that satellite imaging and trailing cameral trailing. And using a long-distance trail on a suspect does not amount to search nor seizures, all have one common aspect – that there is no human contact with the property or the target person.美国法律案例研究论文代写
In this comparison, therefore, it is evident that the GPS tracking attached at the car amounted to an infringement of the fundamental human rights to privacy as well as the seizure of his property because the GPS gadget was not part of the car. And that the car was used for purposes not known and acknowledged by the owner. Therefore, the police officers’ use of GPS without the reasonable cause and before obtaining a warranty of search or seizure amounted unreasonable search and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
译文：
在这方面，加西亚在辩护中引用了宪法侵犯了他的隐私权。美国法律案例研究论文代写
虽然搜查不构成身体接触或干扰他的日常活动，但构成对他同样受法律保护的私人空间和隐私的侵犯。使用 GPS 跟踪设备本身跟踪他的移动到他的私人空间。在上面给出的实例中，卫星成像和拖尾相机拖尾。对嫌疑人使用远距离追踪并不等同于搜查或扣押，它们都有一个共同点——即没有人与财产或目标人接触。
因此，在这个比较中，很明显，汽车上的 GPS 跟踪侵犯了基本的隐私人权，并没收了他的财产，因为 GPS 小工具不是汽车的一部分。并且这辆车被用于车主不知道和承认的目的。因此，警察在没有合理理由的情况下并在获得搜查或扣押保证之前使用 GPS 构成不合理搜查和违反第四修正案。
However, there are exceptions to the application Fourth Amendment.
The right to privacy does not apply when a person has voluntarily given their personal information. For instance, the use of smartphones’ geolocation has acceptance of the privacy terms. Therefore, no person can claim that their rights were infringed. However, when an investigative body needs such information from the third party needs to have a warranty. Moreover, with the advancement in technology, the police are not restricted from using it in carrying out their investigations. In this case, therefore, they could argue that the GPS tracking is part of the larger technologies being used daily. And which the law has the remedy of no violation of privacy to persons and property.美国法律案例研究论文代写
Moreover, the defendant could have argued that the action had a reasonable cause to warrant the GPS tracking of Garcia. Therefore, planting the tracking device was the most reasonable way to build on his case for prosecution. Further, the issue was also in the public interest as some of those close to him had started to tip them off about his behavior. In this case, they will claim that they were confident of his suspicious behavior as informed by other people close to him. In this case, the Fourth Amendment allows for the admissibility of such evidence.
It can be argued that, due to the advancement in technology and the conflicts that arise thereof. The Fourth Amendment should amend to make it adaptive to changes hence offer a remedy to the modern concerns in privacy. As Chief Justice Warren stated. Technology is posing a high risk the people privacy due to the rampant use of devices. Which are not covered by the Fourth Amendment. These changes have therefore posed challenging questions to the Amendment and how they give remedy to such cases.
译文：
但是，应用程序第四次修订存在例外情况。
当一个人自愿提供他们的个人信息时，隐私权不适用。例如，使用智能手机的地理定位已接受隐私条款。因此，任何人都不能声称其权利受到侵犯。但是，当调查机构需要第三方提供此类信息时，就需要有保证。此外，随着科技的进步，警方在进行调查时不受限制。因此，在这种情况下，他们可能会争辩说 GPS 跟踪是日常使用的大型技术的一部分。并且法律具有不侵犯人身和财产隐私的补救措施。
此外，被告可以辩称，该诉讼有合理的理由来保证 Garcia 的 GPS 跟踪。因此，安装跟踪设备是在他的案件基础上进行起诉的最合理方式。此外，这个问题也符合公众利益，因为一些与他关系密切的人已经开始向他们透露他的行为。在这种情况下，他们会声称他们对他身边其他人所告知的可疑行为充满信心。在这种情况下，第四修正案允许此类证据的可接受性。
可以说，由于技术的进步及其产生的冲突。第四修正案应进行修改以使其适应变化，从而为现代隐私问题提供补救措施。正如首席大法官沃伦所说。由于设备的广泛使用，技术对人们的隐私构成了很高的风险。第四修正案未涵盖的内容。因此，这些变化对修正案以及它们如何为此类案件提供补救提出了具有挑战性的问题。
References 美国法律案例研究论文代写
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernardo Garcia, Defendant-Appellant., 474 F.3d 994, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 2272, (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit February 2, 2007, Decided).
其他代写：代写CS C++代写 java代写 r代写 金融经济统计代写 matlab代写 web代写 app代写 作业代写 物理代写 数学代写 essay代写
