More handpicked essays just for you.
The fourth amendment analysis bar essay
A court case dealing with the fourth amendment
A conclusion of the 4th amendment rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
David Leon Riley was arrested on August 22, 2009 for having possession of firearms. Under Chimel and Robinson, police officers were allowed to search his person and the area around him for potential weapons or possible evidence that could be destroyed without a warrant. Before Riley vs. California this also included his cell phone. Through looking at his cell phone, the police officers found photos and videos of him associated with a gang and they tied him to a shooting of a rival gang weeks prior (Riley v. California). Technology is a rapid force that is changing the very ideals of modern life. Cell phones now contain more information than anything has before and for many people it contains who they are. Many charges have been based solely …show more content…
Const. am. 4.). The fourth amendment is the first line of protection against any warrantless searches. While this amendment doesn’t include anything in digital nature, it implies the right to privacy which has been mandated by the Supreme Court. Now there are two exceptions to the fourth amendment’s search and seizure rule. In Chimel vs California it was mandated by the Supreme Court that “an arresting officer may search the arrestee 's person to discover and remove weapons and to seize evidence to prevent its concealment or destruction, and may search the area ‘within the immediate control’ of the person arrested, meaning the area from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible …show more content…
People carry more information in their cell phones than they have ever had before. In the pre-digital era, people would only carry a few pictures and possibly some notes. Now people carry thousands of messages, hundreds of pictures and videos each with a GPS tracker, apps explaining their interests, and even search history. No one in the pre-digital era would carry anything to this degree. “You have a rule of law that was established in the pre-digital era and now you have to apply it in the digital era…” (Justice Alito, Riley v. California). This kind of information would originally only be found in a person’s house which a police officer would need a warrant to access. Now that information has become more portable, it is not protected under the fourth amendment? Even if the police officers swore that they would only look up information on the phone that was relevant to the arrest. A argument could be made that anything on the cell phone could be related to the crime like how much they have access their banking app, or what have they been searching in their search history, GPS locations on photos or videos, and even a fitness app that kept track of how many steps a person took in that day. Police officers would be going on fishing expeditions through the cell phone and completely invade the
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
The 4th amendment protects people from being searched or having their belongings taken away without any good reason. The 4th amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. For many years prior to the ratifiation, people were smuggling goods because of the Stamp Act; in response Great Britain passed the writs of assistance so British guards could search someone’s house when they don’t have a good reason to. This amendment gave people the right to privacy. “Our answer to the question of what policy must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant.” This was addressed to officers searching people’s houses and taking things without having a proper reason. I find
The 4th Amendment only applies when certain criteria are met. The first criterion is that the government must be involved in a search or seizure via government action. This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor of 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 technologic 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.
In 1787, the Constitution, created by a group of men known as the “Framers”, is the highest law in the United States. At first, the Constitution was not ratify because it did not have a bill of rights which is a list of rights that belong to the people. Therefore to allow changes to the Constitution, the Framers created the amendment process. In 1791, congress proposed twelve changes to the Constitution. Ten of the twelve changes were agreed to by the states and were called “The Bill of Rights.” Some of these rights include the right of free speech, the right to practice your own religion and the right to be silent if you are arrested.
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.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments
Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York) first introduced the Mobile Device Theft Deterrence Act of 2012 (S. 3186). This was the first attempt to address phone crimes on a national scale. Due to the previous failure in 2012, the Mobile Device Theft Deterrence Act was re-introduced by Senator Schumer in 2013. It targeted to criminalize tampering with mobile device identification number as a means to halt the black market for stolen cell phones. There is a unique International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number in every smartphone. This number enables local carriers to block operating device’s network and puts it on blacklist. This bill also sought to impose a 5-year criminal penalty for the alternation of IMEI number. Other than these, there were joint efforts between cell carriers and FCC to create Stolen Cell Phone Registry by November 30, 2012 . This registry would store a list of stolen phones’ International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number. However, this database only worked if thieves didn’t tamper cell phone ID number. In fact, there are many loopholes for thieves to get around with such registry. When cellphones are reported stolen, most phone carriers in United States only deactivate the SIM card by prohibiting access to information stored in the SIM card. This blocks the device from using the existing data on the phone. Yet, SIM card can be easily removed and replaced. Stolen cell phones can be sold in black market even if it is blocked. Therefore, there are a lot more to be done to protect public safety and smartphone crimes.
The extents of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution has been long discussed since its adoption in mid-late 1800s. Deciding cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade has been possible due to mentioned amendment. These past cases not only show the progression of American society, but also highlights the degree of versatility that is contained within the amendment. Now, in 2015, the concerns are not of racial segregation or abortion, the extent of the amendment was brought to a new field: same-sex marriage. In Obergefell v Hodges, we can see the epitome of the Equal Protection Clause.
are expected to tell the truth, even if that truth was to put you in
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).
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.
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
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...
In this technology driven era, I question what effect cell phones are having on our lives as American citizens? To investigate this, I read two articles. The first reading was “Mobile Phone Tracking Scrutinized” by Nikki Swartz originally published in the Information Management Journal for March/April 2006, and the second reading was “Reach out and Track Someone” by Terry J. Allen, originally published by In These Times on May 15, 2006. In her article, Swartz questions the legality of using a cell phone’s GPS system as a tracking device in situations when crimes are involved. She argues the potential violation of Fourth Amendment rights and describes loopholes our government avoids when the data is as a surveillance device. In her article, “Reach Out and Track Someone”, Allen shows the conspiracy theorist’s view of cell phone data tracking use. She suggests the government uses of warrantless wiretapping, and argues the communications companies and government have been involved in questionable activities (p1). Swartz and Allen question the government’s practices using cell phone data; Swartz sees the issue as practical is some cases, where Allen sees an overt violation of privacy. Both of the articles brought up two important questions. How do we define our expectation of privacy, and when does the government’s need take precedence, and even violate an individual’s expectation of privacy?