Amendment Iv, 8

1645 Words7 Pages
Amendment IV (1791)- 8.) Government must have a search warrant based on probable cause Courts Divided Over Searches of Cellphones Source: The NY Times November 25, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/technology/legality-of-warrantless-cellphone-searches-goes-to-courts-and-legislatures.html?ref=searchandseizure&_r=0 This right states that government make the search and seizure warrant based on the cause. For example, if a person was accused for some crime and that person already have record of the crime before then the court will make the warrant based on that record. Sometime policies don’t need warrant such as bounty hunters, because the court already took the rights of the person who is being accused away. This right…show more content…
An Ohio court ruled that the police needed a warrant to search a cellphone because, unlike a piece of paper that might be stuffed inside a suspect’s pocket and can be confiscated during an arrest, a cellphone may hold “large amounts of private data.” But California’s highest court said the police could look through a cellphone without a warrant so long as the phone was with the suspect at the time of arrest. Judges across the nation have written tomes about whether a cellphone is akin to a “container” — like a suitcase stuffed with marijuana that the police might find in the trunk of a car — or whether, as the judge in the Rhode Island murder case suggested, it is more comparable to a face-to-face conversation. That judge, Judith C. Savage, described text messages as “raw, unvarnished and immediate, revealing the most intimate of thoughts and emotions.” That is why, she said, citizens can reasonably expect them to be private. There is little disagreement about the value of cellphone data to the police. In response to a Congressional inquiry, cellphone carriers said they responded in 2011 to 1.3 million demands from law enforcement agencies for text messages and other information about subscribers. Among the most precious information in criminal inquiries is the location of suspects, and when it comes to location records captured by smartphones, court rulings have also been inconsistent. Privacy advocates
Open Document