The unregulated search of a cell phone is clearly an intrusion of privacy and regulations along with search protocols need to be established. According to the Pew Research Center, as of November 2016, 77% of Americans utilize a smartphone ("Mobile Fact Sheet"). How and when the government is allowed to accesses this data is something that is largely overlooked. Due to the fact that this particular issue impacts over three-quarters of Americans, regulations need to be established.
Obviously, law enforcement is necessary to maintain order in any society. In order for this to be accomplished warrants along with other search and seizure laws are a necessity. Currently, there are not any federal laws specifically pertaining to what information
…show more content…
California as William Clark wrote in the Boston College Law Review (1983). But this is only one part of the issue. Once a cell phone has been seized by the government, the question becomes what information should they be allowed to access and what is the expectation of privacy that an owner should have. “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.” (US Const., amend. 4) is stated in the Fourth Amendment. As a further explanation of how this applies we can look at the following …show more content…
For example, a cell phone contains many apps that track movements, banking information, or medical information all in an electronic form. The previous precedent in regards to what can be searched has been based on the container doctrine which dealt with the searching of containers found on arrestees. The issue is that a cell phone contains digital data and not physical items as the original ruling was based upon (Beutler 391). Once again the introduction of new technology creates the need to define the protocols for searching a cell phone instead of using outdated
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).
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.
Before getting into specifics, it is necessary to put down the general theory behind the assertion.
Many people today have faced a time or two where their person, property, or homes have been search by law enforcement. Search and seizure is when law enforcement authorities or police officers suspect someone of criminal activity and performs a search. During the search the officer may take anything that can be used as evidence to present to the courts. It is a chance that some people’s rights and privacy have been violated during these searches and seizures. The United States Constitution Fourth Amendment has been put into place to protect the rights of citizens against unreasonable searches and seizure by law enforcement authorities.
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
As of today police officers are required to get a warrant to search any kind of property of the individual being arrested. These warrants require probable cause for the search of specific properties issued by an impartial judge. Those rights are protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Over the years, the United States Court has made exceptions to these requirements, which essentially allow the police to search certain types of property without a warrant and infuriating a lot of citizens. One of the big conflicts that citizens and officers are facing is case of Cellphones and smart phones, until now, the Court had not addressed whether this fit into an exceptions. I strongly believe that the rights of citizens should be preserved and a warrant must be issued in order to go through any information on any kind of phones.
“Smartphones and the 4th Amendment”. The New York Times. (27 Apr. 2014).Web. 28 Apr. 2014.
A search and seizure is the phrase that describes law enforcement's gathering of evidence of a crime. Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, any search of a person or his premises this also includes vehicles. Any seizure of tangible evidence, must be reasonable. Normally, law enforcement must obtain a search warrant from a judge, specifying where and whom they may search, and what they may seize, though in emergency circumstances, they may dispense with the warrant requirement.
Swartz and Allen both offer valuable perspectives on expectation of privacy and legal limitation of cell phone data tracking use. As consumers of technology, Americans use cells phone not always by choice, sometimes by necessity. Both authors advise us to question our stand on the government’s unwarranted involvement in our lives. I would encourage us all to be aware of all technology around us. Albeit convenient, we must be willing to accept our part in its use.
According to Rosen, the main reason why people acquire a cell phone is because of security. After the tragic event that occurred on September 11, 2001 in the United States cell phones started to play an important role in our lives. Rosen states that after this e...
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, ...
"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.
Dangers of cell phones to the health and safety on any one individual can be supported not only in opinion but fact as well. Opinions and research vary greatly on the negative aspects of cell phone usage, although most would choose benefits over that negative. While most consumers may appreciate the convenience and mobility of cell phones, the human body will not.
Cell phones are wonderment 's of technological advances over time. Though when do Cell phones become a tool that could be used to cause suffering, like in this case getting me in trouble. None the less, the time I was used my phone the wrong way not only got me in to trouble, but made me realize that I should think before I do.