Reference no: EM133684781

Ziggy conducts his business securely either from his home or his personal vehicle. Now due to a uninvited ear of a human informant Ziggy is here in this courtroom today. The D.E.A. was not currently looking for Ziggy nor was Ziggy doing anything that would conduct the event of a search. A phone call that Ziggy was on was in a public seemed as if he was conducting illegal business was just that a simple telephone call. The recording device that was placed into his sleeping cabin is a direct violation to Ziggy's Fourth Amendment Right. In the case Kee v. City of Rowlett, Tex., 247 F.3d 206, 211 (2001), the City of Rowlett was investigating the murder of two (2) children and they did not obtain any type of warrant to place the recording device at the grave site of the children during the funeral. The police completely violated that Fourth Amendment right of the father and grand mother of the deceased children. Much like Ziggy the recording device was placed into his sleeping cabin to obtain information that was not the D.E.A's place to obtain making Ziggy subjected to the uninvited ear of the United States government. In United States v. Miller 425 US 435 (1976), speaks regarding the need for the right of the people to be secure in thier person, houses, papers and effect against unreasonable searches and seizure. With that being said Ziggy has become insecure when it is coming to his need to be secure in thier person. This is the violation of the Fourth Amendment Right. The train may have been a public area but a conversation is simpky that no matter the context that the human informant took the conversation and the sleeping cabin is much like the home for Ziggy while he is away from his perminent home in the United States. The search and seizure that Ziggy has endured was conducted illegally and was unnecessary. The information obtained should be considered as inadmissable to the court since it was obtained without a warrent.

1. Find a case from that student's Circuit (in other words, your reply must be based on case law from the same jurisdiction in Post 1)

2. Defend the D.E.A.'s actions in support of the U.S. Attorney's position, claiming Ziggy did not have a right to privacy.

3. The case must have relied on Katz in some way, either by comparing or contrasting facts, analysis, and/or holding.