Discuss the two prong test articulated by the Court which determines the actual nature of a reasonable expectation of privacy. Justify the validity of the test in the courts holding for the Katz v United States case. | Quick Homework Help
Due Week 4 and worth 150 points
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens against police officers making unreasonable searches and seizures of personal property. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee the procedures that the courts and police must use to ensure fair treatment of persons arrested for crimes.
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Discuss the two prong test articulated by the Court which determines the actual nature of a reasonable expectation of privacy. Justify the validity of the test in the courts holding for the Katz v United States case. | Quick Homework Help
Get an essay WRITTEN FOR YOU, Plagiarism free, and by an EXPERT!
Analyze the following cases in preparation for a systematic approach for a synthesis of law and fact.
Review each of the follow cases:
- Katz v. United States, 389 US 347 (1967) located at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9210492700696416594&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
- Miranda v Arizona (1966) located at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=384&invol=436
Write an eight to ten (8-10) page paper in which you:
- Prepare a two to three (2-3) page briefing from one of the two (1-2) cases that you reviewed in which you utilized the following areas of importance: a) issue presented; b) short answer; c) the facts of the case; d) a summary of the case; and e) a conclusion of the case outcome.
- Examine the importance of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and determine which amendment offers the greatest protection for defendants in a typical U.S. court case. Justify your position.
- Explore the overall importance of the Fifth Amendment rights. Suggest key events from the Miranda v Arizona case in which you believe law enforcement had violated the fundamental nature of ones Fifth Amendment right. Justify your response.
- Examine three (3) instances in which the Fourth Amendment protects you against unlawful search and seizure. Provide examples of such occurrences to support your response.
- Discuss the two prong test articulated by the Court which determines the actual nature of a reasonable expectation of privacy. Justify the validity of the test in the courts holding for the Katz v United States case.
- Analyze whether or not todays standards allowing government access to all electronic technologies through legislation, like the Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T) Act of 2001, have effectively negated the holding in Katz v. United States.
- Use at least two (2) quality references. Note: Wikipedia and other Websites do not qualify as academic resources.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
- Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any aIDitional instructions.
- Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the students name, the professors name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
- Illustrate the workings of the adversary system.
- Use technology and information resources to research issues in U.S. Courts.
- Write clearly and concisely about U.S. Courts using proper writing mechanics and APA style conventions.
Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality, logic/organization of the paper, and language and writing skills, using the following rubric.
Click here to view the rubric.
| Points: 150 | Assignment 1: Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment Rights | ||||
| Criteria |
Unacceptable Below 60% F |
Meets Minimum Expectations
60-69% D |
Fair 70-79% C |
Proficient 80-89% B |
Exemplary 90-100% A |
|
Did not submit or incompletely prepared a two to three (2-3) page briefing from one of the following two (1-2) cases that you reviewed in which you utilized the following areas of importance:a) issue presented; b) short answer; c) the facts of the case; d) a summary of the case; and e) a conclusion of the case outcome. | Insufficiently prepared a two to three (2-3) page briefing from one of the following two (1-2) cases that you reviewed in which you utilized the following areas of importance: a) issue presented; b) short answer; c) the facts of the case; d) a summary of the case; and e) a conclusion of the case outcome. | Partially prepared a two to three (2-3) page briefing from one of the following two (1-2) cases that you reviewed in which you utilized the following areas of importance:a) issue presented; b) short answer; c) the facts of the case; d) a summary of the case; and e) a conclusion of the case outcome. | Satisfactorily prepared a two to three (2-3) page briefing from one of the following two (1-2) cases that you reviewed in which you utilized the following areas of importance:a) issue presented; b) short answer; c) the facts of the case; d) a summary of the case; and e) a conclusion of the case outcome. | Thoroughly prepared a two to three (2-3) page briefing from one of the following two (1-2) cases that you reviewed in which you utilized the following areas of importance:a) issue presented; b) short answer; c) the facts of the case; d) a summary of the case; and e) a conclusion of the case outcome. |
Weight: 15% |
Did not submit or incompletely examined the importance of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and did not submit or incompletely determined which amendment offers the greatest protection for defendants in a typical U.S. court case and did not submit or incompletely provided justification for your position. | Insufficiently examined the importance of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and insufficiently determined which amendment offers the greatest protection for defendants in a typical U.S. court case and insufficiently provided justification for your position. | Partially examined the importance of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and partially determined which amendment offers the greatest protection for defendants in a typical U.S. court case and partially provided justification for your position. | Satisfactorily examined the importance of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and satisfactorily determined which amendment offers the greatest protection for defendants in a typical U.S. court case and satisfactorily provided justification for your position. | Thoroughly examined the importance of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and thoroughly determined which amendment offers the greatest protection for defendants in a typical U.S. court case and thoroughly provided justification for your position. |
Weight: 15% |
Did not submit or incompletely specified the importance of the Fifth Amendment by suggesting events from theMiranda v Arizona case in which believe law enforcement had violated this fundamental right. Did not submit or incompletely justified your response. | Insufficiently specified the importance of the Fifth Amendment by suggesting events from the Miranda v Arizona case in which believe law enforcement had violated this fundamental right. Insufficiently justified your response. | Partially specified the importance of the Fifth Amendment by suggesting events from the Miranda v Arizona case in which believe law enforcement had violated this fundamental right. Partially justified your response. | Satisfactorily specified the importance of the Fifth Amendment by suggesting events from the Miranda v Arizona case in which believe law enforcement had violated this fundamental right. Satisfactorily justified your response. | Thoroughly specified the importance of the Fifth Amendment by suggesting events from the Miranda v Arizona case in which believe law enforcement had violated this fundamental right. Thoroughly justified your response. |
Weight: 15% |
Did not submit or incompletely examined three (3) occurrences in which the Fourth Amendment protects you against unlawful search and seizure. Did not submit or incompletely provided examples of such occurrences to support your response. | Insufficiently examined three (3) occurrences in which the Fourth Amendment protects you against unlawful search and seizure. Insufficiently provided examples of such occurrences to support your response. | Partially examined three (3) occurrences in which the Fourth Amendment protects you against unlawful search and seizure. Partially provided examples of such occurrences to support your response. | Satisfactorily examined three (3) occurrences in which the Fourth Amendment protects you against unlawful search and seizure. Satisfactorily provided examples of such occurrences to support your response. | Thoroughly examined three (3) occurrences in which the Fourth Amendment protects you against unlawful search and seizure. Thoroughly provided examples of such occurrences to support your response. |
Weight: 10% |
Did not submit or incompletely discussed the two prong test articulated by the court which determines the actual nature of a reasonable expectation of privacy and did not submit or incompletely justified its validity in the courts holding for Katz v United Statescase. | Insufficiently discussed the two prong test articulated by the court which determines the actual nature of a reasonable expectation of privacy and insufficiently justified its validity in the courts holding for Katz v United Statescase. | Partially discussed the two prong test articulated by the court which determines the actual nature of a reasonable expectation of privacy and partially justified its validity in the courts holding for Katz v United Statescase. | Satisfactorily discussed the two prong test articulated by the court which determines the actual nature of a reasonable expectation of privacy and satisfactorily justified its validity in the courts holding for Katz v United Statescase. | Thoroughly discussed the two prong test articulated by the court which determines the actual nature of a reasonable expectation of privacy and thoroughly justified its validity in the courts holding for Katz v United Statescase. |
Weight: 15% |
Did not submit or incompletely analyzed whether or not todays standards allowing government access to all electronic technologies through legislation, like the Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T.) Act of 2001, have effectively negated the holding in Katz v United States. | Insufficiently analyzed whether or not todays standards allowing government access to all electronic technologies through legislation, like the Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T.) Act of 2001, have effectively negated the holding inKatz v United States. | Partially analyzed whether or not todays standards allowing government access to all electronic technologies through legislation, like the Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T.) Act of 2001, have effectively negated the holding inKatz v United States. | Satisfactorily analyzed whether or not todays standards allowing government access to all electronic technologies through legislation, like the Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T.) Act of 2001, have effectively negated the holding inKatz v United States. | Thoroughly analyzed whether or not todays standards allowing government access to all electronic technologies through legislation, like the Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T.) Act of 2001, have effectively negated the holding inKatz v United States. |
| 6. 2 references
Weight: 5% |
No references provided | Does not meet the required number of references; all references poor quality choices. | Does not meet the required number of references; some references poor quality choices. | Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices. | Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices. |
| 7. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements
Weight: 10% |
More than 8 errors present | 7-8 errors present | 5-6 errors present | 3-4 errors present | 0-2 errors present |
