I don’t think that FISA has the right to tap lines that are suspicious. If something is suspicious to FISA then why can’t they contact the police and tell them about the “suspicious activity”? Everyone is granted privacy, as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment, and the ability to feel safe in their own home and line tapping completely violates the victims’ rights. I say victim because they are being spied on. Although it might make some extremists feel safe, it is still a violation of the 14th. No one likes to be searched. In the Lujan V. Wildlife case, it was already stated by many that there was no for sure evidence to sue, so someone being eavesdropped on without any for sure evidence is unconstitutional. If something is found suspicious then it should be brought to the law because everyone has different opinions and what some people think is suspicious might seem normal to others. In the Laird V. Tatum case, the army used their resources but they had permission to because the meetings were open to the public. If the person, who talks regularly to another suspicious person, permits the line to be tapped, or listened in on, then it is okay. When there is permission given by a concerned person who is talking to the suspicious person, the action of tapping the line at any given time would be considered constitutional. In the Massachusetts V. EPA one side had the standing because the fact that the gases were out of control was provable, and if one person one the phone is concerned and has for sure evidence I think tapping the line would be constitutional.jardines opinion
To me, it seems almost common sense, with knowledge of the constitution, that Jardines house was illegally searched. We the court decide that the search was in fact illegal, but Jardines may be searched and tested, with a warrant, at any time. Also, Jardines house must be cleaned by the DEA. The defendant should not get charged for possession because the marijuana was found in an illegal search. If anyone should be charged, it should be either the officer or the department in which he belongs. Everyone must have their constitutional rights protected. In the Kyllo V. U.S. case, the U.S. had a tool to help them detect, but they never searched the house until they had a warrant. If Florida had used the dog to assist them in obtaining a warrant, that would be constitutional, then Jardines would be guilty and charged for possession and distribution would have been further looked into. In the Indianapolis V. Edmond case, the search was unconstitutional, which we agreed with because, just like in this case, there was no warrant for a search and there was no one person or group being looked for. In the U.S. V. Place case, we decide to stick with the precedent and say that a sniff search, without a warrant, is in fact illegal. If there are found weapons or explosives in the detector or scanner, a search must happen to insure the safety of our country, but because drugs couldn’t physically hurt anyone on the plane, the search was unconstitutional. Everyone is guaranteed a protection of rights, and an illegal search is a violation of these rights.