Introduction Police being able to search your phone without is warrant is a violation of privacy and the fourth amendment. This is an ongoing issue that is currently in the Supreme Court and state courts, which have split opinions on the issue. The courts are having a lot of trouble grasping what to compare a cell phone to as far as searching it. A big case that they are comparing searching cell phones to is over 40 years old and it involves a police officer searching through a cigarette box and finding drugs. A judge in the 9th circuit against warrantless search debunked the cigarette box comparison by saying phones are more like a suitcase, except the suitcase contains everything that you have ever traveled with in your entire life, then some. Though that is a better view on the situation, it is still a very narrow view on what personal data really is. Who cares if the police can search your phone? Well when they do, they will learn more about you then you ever knew about yourself. Do you really want a stranger knowing everything about your personal life, it would almost be like living in a glass house with no doors and bright lights on all night (KOPAN, 2013). Background Underlying case 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... ... middle of paper ... ... (2013). Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/19/obama-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-warrantless-cellphone-searches/ (2) Lye, L. (2013). Keeping cell phones private. If the police have a good reason to search a phone, then they can get a warrant, Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/09/16/warrantless-cell-phone-searches-violate-civil-liberties (3) Kopan, T. (2013). Digital era confounds the courts. Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/digital-era-technology-supreme-court-cases-100410.html (4) California, v. Riley, Defendant and Appellant., (2013). (SCD226240). Retrieved from website: http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/People_v_Riley_No_D059840_2013_BL_34220_Cal_App_4th_Dist_Feb_08_2
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
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
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, concluding that a warrant is required to search a mobile phone. In relation to Chimel v. California, a cell phone can in no way be a weapon against a police officer. Where police officers cannot actually look at what is on a cell phone, they can look at the physicality of a cell phone, i.e. the outside of it in order to ensure there are no hidden weapons (Wolf,
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
A short background on the laws concerning surveillance will help clear up some misconceptions on the NSA. Back in 1968, the Wiretap Act protected citizens from the government listening to their phone call...
However, the Court allowed only reasonable mistakes in order to avoid leaving “law-abiding citizens at the mercy of the officers' whim or caprice.” In United States v. Leon, the Court held that physical evidence seized by officers reasonably relying on a warrant, which was later determined to be illegal, did not trigger the exclusionary rule. The Court addressed the same question again in Herring v. United States, where it held that “[w]hen a probable-cause determination was based on reasonable but mistaken assumptions, the person subjected to a search or seizure has not necessarily been the victim of a constitutional violation.” The issue in Herring also involved a warrant that was later determined to be void.
One of the major court decisions for the “Search Incident to Arrest” was Gant vs. Arizona. Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended driving license. When the police officers arrested him and had him hand cuffed in the back seat of the police car, they then did a search on his vehicle. The police then didn’t have a reason to think there were illegal things in his car just from driving with a suspended license. The search warrant to arrest states that a police officer may conduct a warrantless search if there are any suspensions found within the area. In Gant versus Arizona this was not the case. The police officer had no reason to search Rodney’s car just because he had a suspended drivers license. As the police officer was searching the car he found cocaine in a jacket pocket in the back seat. A previous case ruling such as New York versus Belton, they had made the bright-line rule. The bright-line says that a police can search the compartment on the passenger side of a vehicle or any containers that are within the reach or “grabbing area” of the arrestee. Later over the years there was another court casing, Thornton versus United States. During the courts ruling they had changed the Belton rule again. It now said that the police cannot pursue a warrantless search if the arrestee is secured and locked up in a police car and has no access to the inside of the vehicle. After hearing the revised rule, the court did not give up. In the final courts ruling, a police can still perform a warrantless search only if there is any reason to believe there is other crime related evidence in the vehicle. Since the time of Gants arrest the police had no suspicions to conduct a warrantless search because of a suspended driving license, Gant
Whether the U.S. government should strongly keep monitoring U.S. citizens or not still is a long and fierce dispute. Recently, the debate became more brutal when technology, an indispensable tool for modern live, has been used by the law enforcement and national security officials to spy into American people’s domestic.
When the law enforcement searched Wurie’s phone, they did not have a warrant to have the illegal evidence from his cell phone, moreover, it required the court to reconsider Wurie’s sentence. Furthermore, the case of the United States v. Olmstead, Olmstead was suspected as a bootlegger, therefore, got the federal agents to install wiretaps in the basement of his building, convicting him of being a bootlegger with the illegal evidence that got from the wiretaps. Most people argued that the federal agents violated Olmstead’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment, but the court agreed that it did not violate those amendments and that the Fourth Amendment did not require a warrant for wiretapping, if listening devices were outside of the home. Also, in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, law officials convicted Mapp of possessing obscene materials after an illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. However, during they're illegal search they didn’t find evidence of being a suspect to a crime, they still arrested for obscene materials they found during the search. Since the law officials search was illegal, the Supreme Court agreed that the evidence of the obscene materials be concealed in court by providing a limited
During an arrest, the only reason an officer stops you is when you are doing something wrong and is considered a threat to the public safety. When you get searched it is customary for a search warrant to be issued before they invade but, “The Supreme Court is considering whether police may search cellphones found on people they arrest without first getting a warrant…”(John, 2014).As John L Micek from The Patriot News, cellphones are powerful computers that store sensitive personal information and more than 90% of Americans own at least one cell...
Cell phone privacy has become quite an issue over the past few years now that cell phone use is prevalent among most of the world. There have been many articles and news stories circling around about how the government is tracking every move on our cell phone. This includes the government and other entities recording our conversations. Many people view this as a violation of privacy because their expressed thoughts and feelings are being recorded and listened to by someone somewhere. Another ethical concern that this brings about is the violation of the privacy protections of the fourth amendment. Law enforcements officials have the right to access personal location data without giving probable cause to the judge (ACLU 1). While this can create an unnerving feeling I believe the government has taken these measures to keep the country safe. If the government can prevent...
Courts have allowed warrantless searches in situations where it would be impractical or dangerous to delay a search in order to obtain a warrant. Also a warrantless search con is conducted if an incident lead to a lawful Arrest. Police officers may conduct a limited search of a person when they have placed the person under arrest. The search must be limited to the area of the person’s immediate control and be for the purpose of checking for weapons and evidence Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). Police must obtain a warrant, however, to search a person’s cell phone after an arrest Riley v. California, 571 U.S. (2014). Also when an arrest involves a vehicle a police officer may search the vehicle without a warrant during the lawful arrest of the driver, but only if they reasonably believe that the person under arrest might still be able to access the vehicle’s passenger compartment, or the vehicle contains evidence relevant to the offense for which they are arresting the person. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009).So in the middle of an investigation, instead of having to wait hours or days to search a house, car, etc. An app connected to a judge computer could send out the details of what kind of crime has taken place, the area that needs to be search, the item that is trying to be recovered. Once that information is sent out, a judge will instantly received the request for a warrant and they can either approve or deny the search
Privacy is a right granted to all American citizens in the Fourth Amendment which states “people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and lives against unreasonable search and seizures”. Although our founding fathers could have never predicted the technological advancements we have achieved today, it would be logical to assume that a person's internet and phone data would be considered their effects. This would then make actions such as secretive government surveillance illegal because the surveillance is done so without probable cause and would be considered unreasonable search or seizure. Therefore, access to a citizen’s private information should only be provided using probable cause with the knowledge and consent of those who are being investigated.
"National Security -- Telephony Metadata Collection -- White Paper Argues Metadata Collection Is Legal Under The USA Patriot Act." Harvard Law Review 127.6 (2014): 1871-1878. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 May 2014.