As we move into the twenty-first century people are confronted with complicated and compromising matters affecting the intricately convoluted global system. New forms of aggression and threat are the faces that greet policy-makers as they spend many hours arranging ways to counter future attacks such as terrorism or massive drug trafficking across national borders. President George W. Bush has issued a mandate in an undertake to regain control over future acts of aggression such as terrorism in the United States; he issued the Executive Order of Homeland Security as that initial step. The Executive Order can be seen as an advantage in combating terrorism. In the Executive Order, it states the functions of this cabinet: ” The functions of the office shall be to coordinate the executive branch’s efforts to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the United States” (Sec 3). It states that an act such as terrorism is something not accepted by United States nationals and for anything in relation to it will be handled accordingly. It additionally makes it clear that terrorism is seen as an irregularity, in consistent with proper conduct, and a threat to state power. To be able to exercise these new guidelines and standards; the state must exhibit some form of control in power in its implementation process. The NSA was authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, the phone calls, Internet activity, text messaging, and other communications related to any party believed through the NSA to be outside the U.S. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, Bush issued an executive order that authorized the President’s Surveillance Program. The new directive allowed the National Security Agency to track communications between suspected terrorists outside the U.S and parties within the U.S. without obtaining a warrant, which previously had been required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.According to the Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Without the Fourth Amendment, people would have no rights over their personal privacy. The 4th amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If it is violated by the government, all evidence found by the unlawful search and seizure must ought to be excluded as according to the exclusionary rule, which serves as a solution for 4th amendment violations. Before a solution can be given for violation of the 4th amendment, a court shall determine whether the 4th amendment is appropriate to a certain case. The 4th Amendment only applies when standards are met. The first standard is that the government must be involved in a search or seizure by means of government action. This motion applies to behavior by government officials. After the first standard has been met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has appeared. A search is interpreted as the physical or technological invasion of a place considered by the majority of the court to have a rational assumption of privacy. These areas could be homes or a closed telephone booth depending on the situation of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes one’s personal assets or the individual themselves. Searches and seizures require a specific warrant written by a seperate and neutral magistrate based on probable reason. This warrant requirement can be relinquished depending on the situation of the incident. Some examples of this include the automobile exception, emergencies, searches incident prior to arrest, and exigent circumstances. Police may also make warrantless arrests provided they have probable cause before the arrest. The executive order is a violation because it allows warrantless searches, which is an invasion of privacy. A.E: Safford Unified School District v. Redding, school officials violated a 13-year old student’s rights when they searched her bra and underwear based on reasonable suspicion that she had brought forbidden prescription and over-the-counter drugs to school.