Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
2015-2016 Topic Lecture
Transcript of 2015-2016 Topic Lecture
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.
Other forms of surveillance
Supreme Court Cases & Laws
It all changes
Exigent Circumstances & Plain View
-Mincey v Arizona (1977) establishes exigent circumstances
-Horton v California (1989) establishes plain view
-Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
-Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Kurt Fifelski, University of Michigan
United States federal government
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Katz v. United States (1967)
Defines legitimate expectation:
-the location of the search
-reasons behind it
-All arrests are 4th Amendment events
-All persons have a “legitimate expectation of privacy”
Domestic Surveillance Post-9/11
Executive Order 12333
PATRIOT ACT - Sections 203, 212,
-In 2002 the NSA reached out to Telecoms, granting them access to over 81% of telephone data
-By 2003 they were recording telephone data on most AT&T Costumers
-The FBI & CIA were fully involved in data analysis in 2004
-2006, the Dragnet begins
-2007, Bush signs the Protect America Act
-2008, Bush signs the
2012, Edward Snowden
2015 USA FREEDOM Act
-Ends the collection of phone metadata
-Maintains roving wiretap & lone wolf provision
-Does not address foreign internet content collection
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The 14th Amendment
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Border Exception
-Little 4th Amendment protection within 100 miles of the border
-2/3 of the US population covered
-9/10 of the biggest cities
Impose a restriction on
The United States Federal Government
“the focused, systematic and routine attention to personal details for the purposes of influence, management, protection or direction”