Binks Vs Mckay Case Study
On May 12, 2016 the court case Binks/McKay vs the United States challenged the idea of the Fourth Amendment. The case explains the situation between Binks and McKay, who claimed that the FBI violated their Fourth amendment rights when the FBI searched through their Facebook messages after being suspected of being terrorists. This occured when Binks and McKay were discovered to have been communicating with a supposed ISIS member. They had claimed to have no intentions of joining the terrorist group. In this case, Sam and Melanie (petitioners) reminded us that a warrant and reason for searching is a necessity when it comes to violating one’s right to privacy. However, court justices Danny and Nick both asked similarly: “Why do you think that violates their privacy?
…show more content…
Beloved American author, Isaac Asimov once stated: “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been.” There’s definitely an unflattering portion of the US population that should be considered ignorant. So when it comes to the Supreme Court deciding which side they choose, I believe it to be incredibly important that they think intellectually and logically. The Fourth Amendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” But just like any constitutional rights, this amendment can be extremely flexible and might be interpreted in different ways. For the side of Binks and Mckay, they heavily emphasized on the idea of strictly protecting the privacy of others regardless of the situation, including popular platforms such as social media. They have stated that: “Privacy is being taken away, plus there was no indication as to why they were searching.” At that point, it stands clear that privacy is in fact something that should be
Beloved American author, Isaac Asimov once stated: “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been.” There’s definitely an unflattering portion of the US population that should be considered ignorant. So when it comes to the Supreme Court deciding which side they choose, I believe it to be incredibly important that they think intellectually and logically. The Fourth Amendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” But just like any constitutional rights, this amendment can be extremely flexible and might be interpreted in different ways. For the side of Binks and Mckay, they heavily emphasized on the idea of strictly protecting the privacy of others regardless of the situation, including popular platforms such as social media. They have stated that: “Privacy is being taken away, plus there was no indication as to why they were searching.” At that point, it stands clear that privacy is in fact something that should be