Case 1
In Danny Kyllo v United States 1992, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure is not an easy standard to apply. This gives persons the right to privacy in their premises. At times a person may be carrying out an illegal activity in this privacy. The activity in question may be hazardous to the neighbors, the environment and the society at large. This will therefore prompt legal authorizes including cops to carry out unexpected and unnecessary search of the premises. This will be a violation of privacy but is uncalled for because the Government need to make sure that the society is free of such people carrying out illegal operations in their private homes with the security of Fourth Amendments against unreasonable such. Some cases may be contradicting when it comes to collecting evidence for criminal activities.
In Danny kyllo v United States 1992, the police did not act ethically in obtaining the evidence in this case. The policy should avoid unwarranted searches as provided for by the Forth amendment to the US constitution. This also violates citizen’s right of privacy. People privacy in the residential homes is a right that the Government authorities should obey. However in the case of a suspected Marijuana dealer, such a search is necessary because evidence is needed in court.
In Danny Kyllo v United States 1992, Kyllo did not act ethically in trying to suppress the evidence because he suppressed the imaging evidence by arguing that it was unreasonable search violating the Fourth Amendment to the US constitution. Imaging evidence is a law by the US government and for the sake of respecting the Government; he should not have done this. If this never happened the police could not have carried out the unwarranted search and his right to privacy in his premise could not have been violated.
The Government can catch entrepreneurs such as Kyllo by requesting the members of the country to have a collective social responsibility to the society by reporting cases of suspected drug dealers to the relevant authorities, which will therefore take necessary action.
Case 2
The supreme court reconciled its decision in City of Indiana v Edmond 1998 by stressing that, threats of terrorists attack may be difficult to obtain evidence, catching dangerous criminals who are likely to flee away by way of a particular route may call for violation of the fourth amendment to the US constitution.
In City of Indiana polis v Edmond 1998, the nine percent of criminals who were caught by the roadblock should not get off because of the fourth Amendment. These are criminals to be charged and sentenced or fined. If they are let free, others may want to do the same.
From City of Indiana polis v Edmond 1998, it is evident that the business of illegal narcotics in United States is huge. No taxes are obtained from this illegal business. This business should however be completely banned by the Government regardless of the taxation that can be derived from this. These are drugs that have spoiled many young Americans who could have been relied on in future. Before the Government thinks of the economic benefit of such they should consider the welfare of its citizens.
References
Business ethics cases. (1979) 120,121. Supreme court of the United States.
Business and Cyber cases. (2000) 129. United States of America.