Cell Phones And Its Effects On Our Lives

Police officers use search and seizure as a tool to ensure their safety, gather evidence, and arrest suspects. In police training, a search is defined as an examination of a hidden place, i.e. a person or their property, whose purpose is to find contraband (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). A seizure is defined as the capture or arrest of a person or the confiscation of property (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). Depending on the individual situation, a warrant may or may not be required to conduct searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule, which states that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in court, has guided the definition of search and seizure, specifically as it pertains

Over the past decade, we have integrated technology into many parts of out lives. We use our cell phones for everything from finding directions, to taking pictures of moments you do not want to forget. Everywhere you go, you cell phone goes with you, if you forget it at home, somehow we feel naked without it. Cell phones have become so powerful and useful for so many things other than just making phone calls; I do not even know why we still call them phones. With that, we have the right to feel secure and free from unwarranted searches though our cell phones and electronic devices.

David Leon Riley was pulled over by a police officer for driving with expired license plates. Once pulled over for operating the vehicle without valid registration, the officer discovered that Riley also had a suspended license. Following police policy for suspended licenses, the officer impounded Riley’s car. At that point another officer performed a mandatory inventory search of the car that led to the discovery of two handguns under the hood of the vehicle. Police proceeded to arrest Riley for the possession of loaded firearms. The arresting officer also found and seized a cell phone in Riley’s possession along with items associated with the “Bloods” street gang. Photographs and videos accessed on the cell phone connected Riley to the

California was similar to the first case of Riley v. California in that there was a cell phone searched without a warrant. In the case with Wuire, he was arrested after police noticed he was involved with an obvious drug deal. After being arrested and seizing his possessions, the police noticed his phone was receiving a few phone calls from a contact called my home. Using that number under the contact, the police determined it was in fact his home. They the obtained a search warrant for his home and seized even more drugs and drug paraphernalia. Brima Wurie was then charged for the additional drugs. He then moved to try and suppress the evidence obtained through his phone, but would be denied by the court. Brima Wurie was then later convicted for the additional charges. Later on though, the original decision to deny the phone evidence would be reversed. The court determined that cell phones are different from other personal possessions, in that they can contain much more personal information than anything else they may be carrying and that they pose no physical threat against an officer on scene. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Stahl, Circuit Judge, 728 F.3d 1, reversed. Certiorari was

The district court ruled against Mr. Comerford’s claim that the evidence brought against him was unconstitutional. For the purpose of this legal argument, Knotts v. U.S., Kyllo v. U.S, and Katz v. U.S. will be used to suggest to the Court that Comerford had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his evening drug runs, and Smith v. Maryland will be used to prove that there is no expectation of privacy regarding the phone numbers dialed. Together, these two cases prove that the government agents were not conducting an illegal search by tracking Comerfords location using The Chum, and that the evidence gathered by this investigation may be used against Comerford in a Court of law.

Several court cases, some dating back to the early 2000s, have been held over the tracking and/or seizure of cell phones by police authority. This has stirred up massive controversy due to the courts inconsistent rulings that seem to vary by state. This can be troublesome in many instances where a similar trial in two different states can have two different rulings, meaning there is no precedent rule or written mandate for such occasion. While cell phone technology in particular is becoming more and more of a utility for not just our personal but our public lives as well, the people are beginning to fight for their privacy through the use of their digital

It was therefore their contention that exigent circumstances should be a standardized requirement for warrantless searches, and that this requirement would strike a more appropriately balance in the tug-of-war between constitutionally protected privacy rights and enforcement rights to conduct investigations efficiently. The dissenting opinion found no exigent circumstances in the Fearon case in that 1) there was no reasonable basis to believe the cell phone held information that would prevent an imminent risk to safety and 2) there was no reasonable belief that the warrantless search would lead prevent an imminent loss of evidence (Fearon citation). Noting the lack of exigent circumstances in Fearon’s case, the dissenting opinion found that the search had been unlawful and in violation of Fearon’s s. 8

Specifically, the device did not threaten officer safety, and searching it after it had already been seized was not necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence. Riley also argued that the search of his cell phone was unreasonably intrusive given the extraordinary amount of sensitive personal information stored on the phone, and the First Amendment implications of the government's collection of those communications. Petitioner also argued that it would not be sufficient for the Court to establish a rule limiting the cell phone search to situations where the officer believes the phone contains evidence of the crime of arrest. Finally, Riley argued that the search of his cell phone at the police stationhouse was too remote from his arrest to be justified under the

2. The defendant was arrested for the contents that were found on his phone. The contents on his phone were found without a search warrant.

Justice Alito accepted the majority’s rule for the reason that “we should not mechanically apply the rule used in the predigital era to the search of a cell phone” (Harvard, 2014). The Court held The Supreme Court reversed the California Court of Appeal decision in Riley and affirmed the First Circuit decision in Wurie that cell phone digital content cannot be searched incident to arrest (Harvard,

In the landmark case of Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967), this Court addressed the scope of what constituted as a “search and seizure.” The case raised the question of whether searches were limited to “trespass” as set by Olmstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928). This Court held “that the Fourth Amendment protects people -- and not simply ‘areas’ -- against unreasonable searches and seizures, it becomes clear that the reach of this Amendment cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure.” Katz at 353. The case at bar raises the question as to whether the usage of CSLI without probable cause is considered an unreasonable search and seizure.

I responded to Troy Police Department in reference to a found property call. Upon arrival, I spoke with Rochelle Mckenney. Mckenney stated that her son(Aiden Potter) found a phone in an unknown address on his road, in a creek. The phone is a black LG touch screen phone. The phone was tagged and placed in evidence locker #3. Det. O'hara was notified and a copy of the signature sheet was placed in his box.

Thesis: The usage of cell phones in modern day society has caused quite the problem for citizens in this generation by being a major distraction, causing addictions, and has sadly became the main resource of communication.

Following the time when the mid 1980s, phones have been rapidly moving their route into our commonplace lives, particularly with the presentation of cam telephones in the early part of the new thousand years. As cells develop they have more of an effect on our commonplace lives and I need to exactly how much they are affecting. Similarly as with new engineering in whatever other structure, phones have changed enormously over their generally short life compasses. As these progressions happen, so does the populaces like and here and there loathe for these new advanced cells. One of the real issues happening with cell telephones in present day times is that individuals use them at wrong times, for example, when they are looking at of a market. Despite the fact that there are a couple negative perspectives about phones, my exploration and my paper are going to mostly the profits of Pdas in the United States of America. My exploration concentrates on a few key regions in wireless correspondence, for example, the advancement of Pdas, content informing, Pdas and other PDA applications and in addition my own particular exploration including a overview that I dispersed to some of my colleagues.

groundbreaking work with the severely addicted on Vancouver’s skid row, In the Realm of Hungry