Lopez was having federal tax problems and attempted to bribe an IRS agent. After the IRS agent reported the matter to his superior, he was instructed to keep an appointment with Lopez. However, at the second meeting the IRS agent had a tape recorder in his pocket and recorded the conversation in which Lopez again attempted to bribe the agent to fix his tax problems with the federal government. Lopez was then charged with attempted bribery and at his trial took the witness stand on his own behalf. After Lopez denied under oath that he attempted to bribe the tax agent, the tape recorder was introduced into evidence to show Lopez had not told the truth under oath.
1. Should the U.S. Supreme Court hold that the evidence of the tape recorder was properly used in the federal trial of Lopez? EXPLAIN?
2. Should the U.S. Supreme Court arrim Lopez's conviction of bribery? WHY?
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents or state actors. The United States Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment reaches searches and seizures achieved via electronic surveillance, even without a physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area. Fourth Amendment liability will not attach, however, if one party to a conversation consents to its recording or other interception.
The Fourth Amendment's protections include "conversation," and the use of electronic devices to capture it can sometimes constitute a "search" within the meaning of that Amendment. (State laws vary considerably: for example, New York's statute authorizes eavesdropping without requiring ...
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is discussed in terms of evidence.