- DNA from Arrestees
One of the most controversial of technological advances is the relationship between DNA, probable cause, and issues of privacy and the Fourth Amendment. You are provided with two research documents below that analyze the case of Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that it is constitutional to extract DNA from arrestees. The author of the first article provides an overview of the legal issues associated with compulsory DNA collection from arrestees and argues that the U.S. Supreme Court correctly decided the Maryland v. King case.
The author of the second article raises several concerns about the Maryland v. King opinion and the future of privacy and the Fourth Amendment. Read both documents, and then write an argumentative essay explaining your position on the issue of DNA extraction from arrestees.
Complete the following for this assignment:
- Read the following 2 research documents:
- Deitrich, L. (2015). Say Aah! Maryland v. King Defines Reasonable Standard for DNA Searches. 49 Val. U.L. Rev. 1095.
- to access the article.
- Noronha, S. (2014). Maryland v. King: Sacrificing the Fourth Amendment to Build up the DNA Database. 73 Md. L. Rev. 667 (2014)
- to access the article.
- Deitrich, L. (2015). Say Aah! Maryland v. King Defines Reasonable Standard for DNA Searches. 49 Val. U.L. Rev. 1095.
- Summarize the key legal and privacy concerns discussed by Deitrich.
- Summarize the key legal and privacy concerns discussed by Noronha.
- Write an argumentative essay supporting your position relating to those issues raised by Deitrich and Noronha. Indicate the following:
- Whether you agree with both authors or one author over the other, and why;
- Whether you disagree with one or both authors, and why;
- Discuss your own ideas on DNA extraction from arrestees;
- Explain your position in detail.
For background and additional insight into the Maryland v. King case,
- to listen to the oral arguments.
- to read the Maryland v. King case.
- ShotSpotter Technology
Another controversial technological advancement has been police departments adoption of ShotSpotter technology across the county. ShotSpotter is a sophisticated surveillance system that detects gunshots and pinpoints the location of the gunshots. Once the systems microphones detect sounds of gunfire, it sends the audio file to the ShotSpotter Review Center where it will be determined whether the sound was indeed gunfire. If it is determined that the sound is gunfire, ShotSpotter notifies the local police department.
In favor of the use of ShotSpotter, you are provided with a case, United States v. Rickmon, and the oral arguments, in which the majority of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a ShotSpotter alert could be used to create reasonable suspicion. There also is a dissenting judge in the Rickmon case. You also are provided with an interview with the president of the company that devised ShotSpotter.
Concerns also have been raised about the use of ShotSpotter technology. To support this position, you are provided with an article that questions the use of ShotSpotter and its effectiveness, and Chief Judge Woods dissenting opinion in the United States v. Rickmon case. In the article, Mr. Goodman also questions the United States v. Rickmon opinion and raises several concerns about the ShotSpotter technology.
Read these documents and listen to the oral arguments, and then write an argumentative essay explaining your position on the issue of whether ShotSpotter technology is an effective tool that law enforcement should use and whether it should be used to create reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop, also known as a Terry stop.
Complete the following for this assignment:
- Read the following documents and listen to the oral arguments.Pro ShotSpotter
- United States v. Rickmon, 952 F. 3d 876 (7th Cir. 2020).
- to access the case.
- United States v. Rickmon Oral Arguments.
- to listen to the oral arguments
- Williams, C. (2017, May 10). ) How ShotSpotter locates gunfire, helps police catch shooters and works to ‘deformalize’ gun violence. Weblog post. Washington Post Blogs , Washington: WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post.
- to access the article.
- United States v. Rickmon, 952 F. 3d 876 (7th Cir. 2020).
Questions ShotSpotter
- Goodman, B. (2021). ShotSpotter The New Tool to Degrade What is Left of the Fourth Amendment, 54 UIC L. Rev. 797.
- to access the article.
- United States v. Rickmon, 952 F. 3d 876 (7th Cir. 2020) (dissenting opinion)
- to access the dissenting opinion in the Rickmon case. (Only list the dissenting opinion here, if possible).
- Summarize the key legal points of the Rickmon case and the benefits of ShotSpotter technology.
- Summarize the key legal and privacy concerns discussed by the Goodman article and Chief Judge Woods dissenting opinion in the Rickmon case.
- Write an argumentative essay supporting your position relating to those issues raised by the United States v. Rickmon case and the Goodman article. Indicate
- Whether you agree with the majority opinion or the dissenting opinion in the Rickmon case,
- Whether you agree or disagree with the Goodman article.
- Discuss your own ideas about ShotSpotter technology, how it should be used by police departments, and any constitutional concerns that you may have.
- Explain your position in detail.
For additional background and insight into the ShotSpotter technology and constitutional issues, see
- Gecas, A.S. (2016). GUNFIRE GAME CHANGER OR BIG BROTHERS HIDDEN EARS?: FOURTH AMENDMENT AND ADMISSIBILITY QUANDARIES RELATING TO SHOTSPOTTER TECHNOLOGY. 2016 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1073.
- to access the article.
Be sure to cite all references in APA format.
