The Police’s Right to Search Electronic Devices
With the major advances in technology over recent decades, the legal question arises of whether or not police have the right to search a person’s electronic devices, such as cellphones, tablets, or computers. A person’s most private and personal information about themselves and their loved ones can be stored on a cellphone, making it important for the sensitive content in electronic devices to be protected from the government. However, a person’s private information such as text messages or internet search history can be very useful in providing crucial evidence of criminal activity to law enforcement. Although this does not always mean that police have the right to search a suspected criminal's
…show more content…
An article from Electronic Frontier Foundation titled “Know Your Rights” clearly explains the rights that citizens have when it comes to keeping personal information safe. The Fourth Amendment to the United States constitution protects citizens from unreasonable government search and seizes, which includes electronic searches. While the police technically can ask the suspect to unlock his or her phone, this does not mean the suspect must agree. A person always has the right to refuse further questioning until he or she is in the presence of an attorney. If a person refuses to unlock their phone for the police, the police must abide by this. An electronic search typically cannot be conducted without a warrant, but if a person consents to a search, then no warrant is necessary and any information found may used against them in court. However, if a non-consented and unwarranted search is conducted and a person’s privacy rights are violated, the evidence found in the search cannot be used against that person (Fakhoury & Kayyali, 2014). The unreasonable search of electronic devices was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the 2014 case, Riley vs. California (Fung,
A warranted search is per say reasonable. Officers may then employ various reasonable means of obtaining the information, e.g. search the content of U.S. mail, one’s house or office, or deploy an undercover agent as in Lewis v. United States (1966). They may, without need for physical intrusion as under the archaic trespass doctrine, utilize modern surveillance methods, such as electronic eavesdropping as in Lopez v. United States (1963) or heat signatures. (Solove and Schwartz 83) Under the third party doctrine, officers may obtain information that you voluntarily provide to your bank, accountant, ISP or e-mail provider as per United States v. Forrester (2008). (Ibid 197; 199) Conversely, “a warrantless search is generally considered to be per se unreasonable.” (Ibid 99) As noted in Katz v. United States (1967), “‘the mandate of the [Fourth] Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes,’ and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable…” (Ibid 99) Fail to meet any of the four elements and the warrant does not meet constitutional muster (see Berger v. New York (1967) wherein officers failed to stop surveillance at
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
A search and seizure by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is present. Such a search or seizure is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, and evidence obtained from the unlawful search may not be introduced in court.
A warrantless search voids the constitutional right of the citizen hence, all the evidence obtained will be evicted by the court of law. While the statement holds true, there are situation where a officer of the law does not require a warrant. "Plane view exception", "Consent", and "Search Incident to Lawful Arrest" are three out of the six exception to the warrant requirement (NPC, Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement). One of the case where the judge ruled out in favor of the defendant for warrantless search is the case of "Rodriguez v. Unites States." The foundation of the case was based upon the timing from when the ticket was issued for a traffic violation to when the dog was called to sniff the car (Constitution Daily, Rodriguez v. United States). While the officer claimed the delay was caused by waiting on the backup, the exception does not fall under the
California was heard by the Supreme Court, Riley stated that a smartphone and whatever it may contain does not provide a threat to police officers, therefore People v. Diaz does not apply. Jeffrey L. Fisher, a Stanford University law professor, served as Riley’s representation (Riley v. California, n.d.). He boiled his argument down to the searching of a cell phone is nothing more than an invasion of privacy, as most people now have their entire life on their personal devices (Liptak, 2014).
All evidence found within illegal standing and evidence that is illegally found by police without a search warrant, are inadmissible in court any illegal search done by officers
This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor by the government. After the first criterion has been met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has occurred. A search is defined as the physical or technological invasion of an area deemed by the majority of the court to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These places could be homes or a closed telephone booth, depending on the circumstances of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes one's personal belongings or the individual themselves.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
The Constitution of the United States of America protects people’s rights because it limits the power of government against its people. Those rights guaranteed in the Constitution are better known as the Bill of Rights. Within these rights, the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures […]” (Knetzger & Muraski, 2008). According to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be issued before a search and seizure takes place. However, consent for lawful search is one of the most common exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
A big case in warrantless search of cell phone revolves around Riley vs. California. In this case the police took his cell phone without a warrant after they suspected him to be a possible murder suspect when they found guns that matched the scene of the crime. Though this is on the extreme end of warrantless search it is still wrong. Riley is suing because they conducted this warrantless search on him which led to his conviction and arrest. If the police would have gotten a warrant, then everything would have been ok. But instead they labe...
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (The Consitution of the United States, Article I) In conclusion,this can prove why miranda rights are important to american society with three reasons that are due process, provide a free attorney,and cops warning to citizens.Miranda rights are a prerequisite piece of information for citizens and police,citizens need to remember their miranda
However, because the Bill of Rights may be vague in its’ description of what constitutes “probable cause,” many cases have been brought before the Supreme Court to debate whether there was sufficient evidence for a search or seizure to take place, and some of these cases have dealt with searches and seizures in schools. One major Supreme Court case took place in ...
The ability of police to exercise discretion was originally designed to allow officers to maintain the peace by allowing certain types of crime to remain unpunished in certain circumstances. This essay will aim to explore the issue of police discretion that suggests that the application of discretion works against the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In drawing this conclusion, this essay will examine the relationship between policing ideals and the use of discretionary powers and the relationship between policing attitudes and the use of discretionary powers. A discussion regarding the use of police discretion towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can scarcely be mentioned without making reference to arguably the greatest failing by a police officer since indigenous Australians were formally recognised as citizens. Further to this, the case of Mulrunji Doomadgee (Cameron) will be examined from the point of view of officer discretionary powers. The penultimate point to be made will involve the Anglo Australian response to this case as well as the ongoing relationship between indigenous Australians and the institutions that govern them. As mentioned, the first point will involve policing ideals and their relationship to discretionary powers.
The implications of the government’s wants are frightening. They need new regulations that would make their work easier and faster. Problem at moment is that if the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, then FBI can easily just arrest and block all your information you had in your mobile or follow your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without you even knowing about it. [12]
A search occurs when the police or other government agency intrudes into a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a seizure occurs when they affect a person’s right to have the property. “Some examples of places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy include: Places of residence, Hotel rooms, certain public places such as restrooms, some areas of jail houses, phone booths and certain areas of a car” (Rivera, ...