Summary: Fremont Weeks V. United States

The emergence of new and innovative technology can be used in many deceitful or secretive ways by law enforcement agencies to convict a suspect. The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights has had a large influence in regulating the ways that law enforcement agencies may use technology against the everyday citizen. Technology can be used to obtain information on an individual without the individual being aware of the invasion of their privacy: e-mail accounts can be hacked, IP addresses can be traced, phones can be tapped and tracked, cars can be bugged.

Weeks v. United States (1914)
Fremont Weeks was was convicted of using the mail to transport illegal lottery tickets. When Weeks was arrested, police officers went to Weeks' house to search it. The officers gained entry to his house after a neighbor told them where to find the spare key. Officers entered Weeks’ house without a search warrant. The officers

found and seized letters and envelopes which were later used to convict Weeks of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. Weeks thought that his fourth amendment rights had been violated because the officers entered his private property without a warrant.
Weeks brought this case to the attention of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court came to the decision that the unauthorized entrance of a person’s private property was indeed a violation of that person’s fourth amendment rights. Although this case does not pertain to the advancement of technology in the UNited States, it brought an important point when deciphering 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, 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.” This is the fourth amendment of the United States constitution. But in layman's terms, it simply means that every citizen has the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)
This case concerned a group of men, the focus being on Mr. Ray Olmstead, who were a group of bootleggers. These men were charged with the illegal manufacturing, possession, and distribution of alcohol. At the time the United States was still under the National Prohibition Act, which made it illegal to manufacture, possess, or distribute alcohol within the United States. So, does the Fourth Amendment protect a bootlegger from warrantless government wiretapping?; This is the question that could be used to summarize the matter of the trial. Mr. Ray Olmstead argued that the government wiretapping a private phone call was an invasion of the privacy of himself, and the other seventy-two persons that were indicted, and violated the fourth amendment.
The information that led to Olmstead’s arrest was obtained by four federal Prohibition officers. The officers were able to intercept messages on the telephones of the men that were involved in the organization. This definitely does sound like a violation of the fourth amendment, because the officers did not have a warrant, however, no laws were violated in installing the wiretapping equipment. The officers were able to work around the laws to install their equipment. They did not trespass into the private property of the suspect. Instead, the officers placed their equipment in the public streets next to houses, and in the basement of an office building.
The evidence received from the equipment included enough details about the operation to press charges against the men. The Supreme Court held the decision that neither the fourth or fifth amendment rights of the men had been violated because the devices and equipment were set up on public property. This decision would be overturned by Katz v. United States.

Katz v.

United States (1967)
Charles Katz used a public pay phone booth to transmit operate under secret matters pertaining to illegal gambling, and the transportation of the illegal payouts from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston. The FBI had placed an electronic listening device - commonly referred to as a bug - to record Katz conversations. They attached the bug to the exterior wall of the phone booth. Based on the evidence that the recordings provided, Katz was charged and convicted. Katz argued that the recordings violated his fourth amendment rights.
The previous court sided with the FBI, and claimed that because there was no physical intrusion into the phone booth itself, Katz rights had not been violated. The Supreme Court came to the decision that the FBI did violate Katz’s fourth amendment rights. Their reasoning was that anyone who steps into a phone booth, closes the door, and deposits the payment for the call, has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The phone booth user should not be worried that their conversation would be broadcast to the

world.
This case also decided on another controversial question: does it have to be a physical intrusion to be declared an intrusion on privacy and a violation of rights. The decision was that it is not necessary that the intrusion is a physical intrusion to be considered a violation of privacy and a violation of constitutional rights. This case was a historic point in the relationship between the fourth amendment and technology. Katz v. United States declared that the use of technology was not a way around the wording of the fourth amendment, and that it too was seen as a violation of privacy; therefore, the ruling made it necessary to receive a court-mandated warrant to use eavesdropping or surveillance devices in private areas.
USA PATRIOT Act (2001)
The USA PATRIOT Act was signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The bill’s full name is “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Since its enactment, the PATRIOT Act has stirred up much controversy concerning its motives, justifications, and violation of American civil liberties.
The PATRIOT Act allows FBI agents to search through citizen’s personal information, read their private emails, listen to private phone calls, and other things of that matter. No longer does the FBI need a judge-issued warrant to access this private information. Now, all that is necessary is the subject has to be suspected to be involved with or conspiring to attempt a terrorist act inside the United States; the person does not even need to be linked to a terrorist cell within the United States.
Opponents of the PATRIOT Act claim that the legislature is a gateway to the violation of the civil liberties of citizens by federal organizations such as the FBI or NSA. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act is an example of what scares citizens. Section 215 allows the NSA to begin a mass collection of personal cellphone data. To the relief of the legislature’s critics, Section 215 was amended to disallow any further mass collection of cellular device information. Critics also take note of the opportune passing of the bill; many believe that congress used the terrorist attacks that took place on September 11, and the fear of the Americans to prompt citizens to pass the bill.
Even today, there is much controversy following the passing of legislation that allows the government to search through private information is causing distrust of the government by American Citizens. Cases such as Antoine Jones v. United States, where a man was convicted under evidence found from a warrantless GPS device, concern citizens. Although the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, deciding that legislature such as the PATRIOT Act tempts the government to pry into information, it does not do much to placate the relationship between the American people and the government.
Technology is ever-changing within the United States. It seems as if every few months a new device comes out that is in some way better that the one that preceded it. However, with the new technological devices such as cell phones and server clouds, it becomes increasingly easier for private information to be accessed. The Supreme Court must keep looking at the constitution as a living document to continue to keep the American citizens’ civil liberties protected with the continual innovation of technology.