The Supreme Court has stepped up to answer the question if search incident to arrest on cell phones is violating an individual right. The lower courts are split in the decision. The two cases that are been debated by the Supreme Court is Riley vs. California and Wurie vs. United States. In Riley vs. California, it involved David Riley who was pulled over for having expired tags and driving with suspended license, which led to impound of his vehicle. Once impounded the San Diego Police policy is to document contents inside the car where they found firearms. They also found a smartphone were they searched it twice without warrants and found pictures of the arrestee posing in front of vehicle that was recently identified in a drive by shooting. From there they ran ballistic analysis on the guns found in his car were they matched gun used in the drive by shooting. The picture was used as evidence to prosecute David Riley (Riley, 2009) The California appeal court upheld the conviction. In Wurie vs. United States, Brima Wurie was arrested on suspicion of selling narcotics from his vehicle; from there police took under custody. Where they when through his call log when they noticed that the phone was repeatedly receiving calls. Officers traced the number to a location different to the address that Wurie had given them. After getting a search warrant they discovered crack cocaine, marijuana, cash, and firearms. The 1st U.S Circuit Court of Appeals threw out evidence found in the search stating that search incident to arrest exception does not authorize the warrantless search of data on a cell phone seized from an arrestee. Were David Riley and Brima Wurie rights violated? At the moment law enforcement is allowed to search through anything... ... middle of paper ... ... that there should be guidelines when it comes to searching a cell phone following an arrest. It should not be a free for all when officers get their hands on a cell phone since the cell phone contains some much personal information of an individual. As stated earlier Kerr (2013) does make valid point that computer like devices should have their own set of 4th amendment rules just motor vehicles do. This would establish guidelines for law enforcement helping them decided when they can or can’t search a cell phone. Works Cited Arizona v. Gant 556 U.S 332 (2009). Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf Kerr,O. (2013). Journal of Law & Public Policy: Forward accounting for Technological Change. Vol 36 (No.2) 404-408 United States v. Robinson 414 U.S 218 (1973) Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/414/218/case.html
The issue that this case raises, is whether or not the officers had the right to search the car of a person who they just arrested, while the person is handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car?
This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.
I felt that this case was handled well, but only to the point of where the officer began to move the stereo equipment and search for the serial number and write it down. He had no right to move Mr. Hicks’ items, the officers where there to make an arrest not to search the area or to touch Mr. Hicks’ p...
To be able to understand the ruling of the court, we must first look at what happened before it came to the Supreme Court. First of all, the government did get a search warrant allowing a GPS to be installed on the jeep. However, the GPS must have been installed in D.C. and within the ten-day period that it was issued. The GPS was installed on the 11th in Maryland (Cornell 3-4). He was suspected of having and distributing drugs, so with the help of the GPS, FBI agents were able to find where he hid his supply (Savage 1). The jeep was tracked for a total of 28 days (Cornell 3). This case originally started in the lower court. The U.S. Court o...
...level and not to the state level (once again undermining state government authority). For these reasons, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in this case was one of the most controversial decisions at that time. Up until this decision was made, police in many states had ignored the search and seizure law.
Harris" while the defendant Harris refuse permission to search his car, the sniff dog alerted the officer in charge about the controlled substance in the car handle which stands for a probable cause (Constitution Daily, Folrida v. Harris). With the above three case in mind, one can conclude that the IV Amendment is as easy to violate as easily as it protects the citizen. Sniff dogs are one of many other cases that has contributed to the questioning the IV Amendment along with racial profiling. Another major issue that has kept the controversy of 'unreasonable search and seizure ' is the use of GPS Surveillance on a suspect vehicle. 'United States v. Jones ' the case where judge ruled the evidence obtained were by usurping Jones, hence not acceptable in the court. Jones was arrested by the use of GPS to track his activity for a month, without judicial approval (Body Politic, United States v. Jones). Since the fourth amendment provides protection for search and trespass, the method was direct violation of the constitutional right and Jones was set free from all the charges. Although Jones was found in possession of drugs and should be behind bars, officials should have followed proper protocol to rightfully arrest him. People like Jones should be punished, but being protected by the constitution the proper procedure must be
The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? 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, 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 logic used by the Court in order to justify their conclusion is fraught with weak reasoning and dangerous interpretations of the Constitution. It violates the precedent set in Miranda and seems tainted with a desire to justify consent searches at any cost. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte is a decidedly pro-order case because it qualifies another excuse police can raise to search a citizen, but it is also dangerous because it shows that the Court is not the unbiased referee between liberty and democracy that it should be.
The Supreme Court has held that vehicle searches are permitted if the arrestee is unsecured and is reaching distance from the passenger compartment or if the vehicle would have evidenced related to the arrest. Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 999 (2014). Searches based on information received from a seized cell phone must be permitted by warrant. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009).
Miller, Derek D Essay: Brave New World and the threat of technological growth Vol 3 2011.Print
Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.
Micek, John L. “Is your cellphone protected by the 4th Amendment? Maybe not: What do you think?”The Patriot-News. (29 Apr. 2014).Web. 29 Apr. 2014
In this court case I do believe that most of the evidence found in this case should be thrown out because it was found out illegally. The officers stop was over after he found out about the computer. Also the officer did not have the right to move around the things in his trunk to find out about the computer. Mr. Wilson also should not have been convicted since he was asking for an attorney and that told you have the access to in your Miranda Rights. In my opinion Mr. Wilson's 4th and 6th Amendments were violated in the search for the car and the confession.
Cabral, James E. "Using Technology To Enhance Access To Justice." Harvard Journal Of Law & Technology 26.(2012): 241.LexisNexis Academic: Law Reviews. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
Over the past few years, technology has grown to be the driving force in human productivity and efficiency. Technology has been incorporated into our everyday lives to help us perform daily activities and bridge long distance communication. Although technology has brought us many advantages, it has also created quite few ethical issues along the way. Some of the biggest ethical issues technology has created revolve around cell phones. These issues include cell phone tracking and using the cell phone to cheat. Cell phone privacy can be compromised in many situations regarding phone call tracking and messaging. Cell phone use is also starting to be abused by students and other test takers to cheat on tests. Even if the person has good moral standards, sometimes the right decision to make is not always clear.