Categories
Uncategorized

Katz v. united states | English homework help

•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 […]

•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:
1.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.2.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.3.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 one’s Fifth Amendment right. Justify your response.4.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.5.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.6.Analyze whether or not today’s 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.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE SOLUTION!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *