Mayfield v. the United States - Case Study Example

Procedural history:  Mayfield seek a declaratory judgment under the patriot act that there was a violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution of the United States. The federal government permitted physical and electronic searches on Mayfield’s home yet the court had not demonstrated that he had really committed a crime.  

Issue: Did the government err in conducting electronic surveillance on Mayfield’s home without evidence of a committed crime?

Holding: the federal government did not err since the government can conduct surveillance when gathering evidence to use in criminal cases even without a traditional warrant especially when it presents itself in an assertion that is nonreviewable.

Reasoning: If the purpose of surveillance is for foreign intelligence, the government is not required to have a warrant. The court determined that the main purpose of the surveillance was to get foreign intelligence and thus, the fourth amendment is not applicable in this case (Mayfield v. the United States, 504 F.Supp.2d 1023 (2007).).

My comments: Since the court determined that the surveillance was carried out for the purpose of foreign intelligence, then the fourth amendment should not apply and therefore, the government was not wrong in carrying out the surveillance.