DB 3 Replies

.docx

School

Liberty University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

540

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by steezlebot

DB 3 Replies Hello Brooke, Thank you for providing your contribution to this week’s discussion. I hope you are doing well as well. Your entry was a pleasure to read. I agree that black boxes and hard drives alike in a vehicle need a search warrant. They are considered containers for storing a significant amount of data with a high storage capacity that demands privacy. It is exceedingly difficult to access data on these devices and a special tool is needed, which is not available to most owners ( State v. Worsham , 2017). The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants be described with particularity to avoid the general rummaging through a person’s belongings (Clancy, 2019). Worsham was charged with vehicular murder and drunk driving in the State v. Worsham case. Without a warrant, the police intended to utilize information from a black box to establish Worsham's guilt. According to the Florida court's ruling in State v. Worsham (2017), retrieving data from a car's black box necessitates a search warrant and the suppression of any relevant evidence. The majority contended that analyzing data from a car's black box is not the same as inspecting the tires or brakes. The court held that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the stored data, protected by the Fourth Amendment ( State v. Worsham , 2017). Electronic data recorders capture more than what is voluntarily shared with the public. They have a larger storage capacity than cell phones. An expectation of privacy is only strengthened by the difficulty in retrieving such information (State v. Worsham, 2017). In a world where technology is everywhere and continuously advancing, the law needs to better address how to handle such cases. Doing things on a case-by-case basis can be efficient enough yet may not be beneficial to the officer working the case. It is similar to playing a brand- new game with someone who is constantly changing the rules as the game progresses. It can be challenging to decide what to do at any given time since you never know how the game—or, in this case, the legal proceedings—will wind up. “Watch, therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour” ( English Standard Version , Matthew 25:13, 2001/2023). For this reason, having a warrant before any such searches would be the wisest course of action. This will protect the officer's back and ensure that the evidence is not destroyed, or its gathering method is subsequently called into question. The issue with this is that if certain items are not examined at the time of the arrest, the suspect may discover ways to destroy crucial evidence. Regarding the vehicle's black box, it requires a specialized tool that neither the owner nor a mechanic, in general, can access, thus a warrant would be required to obtain information from it if deemed necessary. Thank you again for sharing your thoughts and research on this week’s forum. I look forward to reading your views on future discussions. God Bless, Heaven References Clancy, Tomas K. (2019). Cyber crime and digital evidence (3 rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Carolina Academic Press. ISBN: 9781531009618. English Standard Version. (2023). Open Bible. https://www.openbible.info/topics/being _prepared (Original work published 2001)

State v. Worsham , 227 So. 3d 602, 604 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017). https://casetext.com/case/state-v-worsham-12 Reply 2 Hello Jalen, Thank you for your thought-provoking post. It was a pleasure to read your thoughts on this discussion. I agree that police should only be authorized to search for weapons and any evidence that could be destroyed. I also agree that searching for information on devices such as hard drives must require a search warrant before any action is taken. This is a necessary measure to ensure that the information stored on such devices cannot be accessed without legal permission. For a warrant to be valid, it must be described in particularity to avoid rummaging through a person's belongings in general as stated in the Fourth Amendment (Clancy, 2019). You stated that it was a good rule for law enforcement to be required to obtain a warrant to search through an individual’s electronic device, phone, or otherwise, and how there are people who question this rule of thumb. You did not mention your feelings on the subject. I believe that it really depends on the situation. Human trafficking, child exploitation, kidnapping, and any situation where the device may help aid in saving lives and protecting victims if the information were extracted sooner would have me leaning towards acting now and worrying later. This is one of the reasons I could never be an officer. Actions like this can have rewards but have more potential having the evidence thrown out or destroying the foundation the case was built on. In other words, it may save a life or even lives but allow the perp to go with a slap on the wrist. Thus, allowing the crimes to repeat in the future. United States citizens have the right to be secure in their homes, belongings, and personal information (Clancy, 2019). No one can search or seize property without a warrant issued by a judge (Clancy, 2019). The warrant must specify the place to be searched and the items or people to be seized, and it can only be issued if there is probable cause (Constitution Annotated, 2022). Over the years, the extent of warrantless searches has been analyzed extensively in court, resulting in significant changes in the way these searches are applied and their scope. The search incident-to-arrest rule allows for a comprehensive search of the suspect's person and belongings immediately following an arrest (Clancy, 2019). For reasons of safety and preventing the destruction of evidence, Chimel v. California requires that a search related to an arrest be restricted to the immediate area within the arrestee's control (Clancy, 2019). Different perspectives have arisen regarding the application of warrantless searches to modern electronic devices. This is due to the nature of the search conducted after an arrest, its precedent, and how it applies to the search for digital evidence. Justice Alito concurred that applying a pre-digital era rule, which pertains to incidents leading to arrests, to the context of modern mobile phone

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help