Government Search Warrant

The fourth amendment states that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” cannot be searched without a warrant. If so many people own a cell phone, wouldn’t they be no different than documents or other pieces of property that conceal private information? Cell phones contain just as much information about a person as any paper would. A cell phone is a piece of private property that one may use on an everyday basis. Mr. Riley is no different. His cell phone was his property that was searched illegally, and although he did commit crimes that were shown in his cell phone, the police still needed a warrant to search the phone. Based on the 4th amendment, I have concluded that the San Diego Police Department’s search of David Riley’s cell phone was unconstitutional and

Over the past several years, and especially now in the past two years, innocent black men are being killed every day by police officers. More often than not, see news headlines of more and more black lives being taken. Innocent lives being taken by officers who serve little to no justice. Eric Garner, Alton Sterling, and Philando Castile are only just a few names on the long and growing list of the black victims of police brutality. Police officers should be held more accountable in cases against police brutality so the list of innocent black lives doesn’t keep growing.

When there is little privacy caused by the fourth amendment it should be looked at seriously. The 4th amendment allows law enforcement to use collect evidence from phone calls for using in court as evidence. Though they need permission from a judge to go through and use your calls they could use your conversations as evidence, as they can use it to catch terrorist and thieves. The intelligence agency can not only use phone calls, but they can also search your home and even your vehicle, obviously they need a warrant but there are a few cases where they do not need a warrant. An example of a case that they do not need a warrant is when a weapon or evidence that is needed is in plane sight, but anything not in plane sight you must have a warrant.

There is a wide debate on if cell phones could testify against people. Cell phones have been around for 40 years. According to the Pew Research Center, “90% of Americans have cell phones and 60% have smart phones”. In the 40 years that phones have been around, people could be hiding things on their phones; but should that mean the authorities can go through anyone’s phone without a warrant? Police could see private stuff that people share with their loved ones, see the texts from anyone and the sender could possibly get in trouble, and they could see anyones private life stuff. The authorities should get a warrant before going through anyone's phone.

On the other hand, some people would argue that you cannot judge all of the officers based on someone’s actions because that would be unfair to the whole system. They struggle and risk their life every day to protect our communities and not being given enough credit and appreciation for their

The precise definition for the term “search” does not exist under current federal law. “The supreme court first defined a search in terms of whether a physical invasion occurred in a constitutionally protected area.” Does the warrantless search and seizure of cellphone records violate the Fourth Amendment? The 4th amendment is an important bill of right for citizens but unfortunately its drawback is prominent in that it promotes crime, puts society’s safety at risk and makes police job complicated at the expense of extreme privacy.

Protecting American citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures is the central idea of the Fourth Amendment; however, the Fourth Amendment may also apply to electronics. Classified organizations, such as, the NSA secretly collect information that includes, details of phone calls, e-mails, and personal Internet activity, although, in 2013 the NSA’s secret was revealed to the public, since it was not publicly known that the NSA had been collecting bulk phone data. The NSA later tried to defend itself and state that it doesn’t mean that they collect all personal records, such as, medical records and library records. In order for the NSA to legally store phone data the agency must first receive a warrant from the FISA Court each time it wants

Airport searches are necessary if passengers are choosing to travel via airplane. Passengers are wondering if these searches violate the Fourth Amendment. Passengers remove their personal belongings such as shoes and their carry-on bags. These are sent through an x-ray while the passenger walks through a metal detector. If the passenger does not set off the alarm, there is no need to undergo further screening, however, if they set off the alarm, further screening is necessary. There are not many journal articles discussing cell phone searches at airports, but there are journal articles discussing cell phone searches at the border.

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,

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

An estimated 91% of American adults own or have used cell phones. (#8) When people buy cell phones, most of the time they have to sign a contract or read terms and conditions. When the phone is purchased it likely has a good amount of the person’s information on it, and is used for social networking and communicating with others. When the person buying the phone accepts the terms and conditions, they basically sign their privacy rights away. Sure not anyone can come up to them and go through their phone, but the phone company can access their info if the right was slipped in the terms and conditions, and there isn’t really anything stopping them from doing that. (#11) So people can complain that their privacy is gone, but they did sign away their right with greed. Although a cell phone has almost become a need in today’s society, it is still only viewed as a want. Therefore, no one has to purchase a cell phone. There aren’t really any laws saying that the

Police officers should not be able to use your phone as evidence. For example,If you got in trouble at school for texting in class would you want to let your teacher go through your phone.In the article freedom comes first it states ”Schools do not have the right to monitor what students do online outside of school”.Let's say that you have personally stuff on your phone that you don't want anybody to see. What if you were texting your mom about a health problem. In addition, what if you saw a drug deal go down and you told the cops, so they took your phone. And found some stuff about you and your friends.Also from the article freedom comes first“open and examine what they find”. Would you want someone going through your phone just because you were helping them out.Furthermore, officers have no right to go through a persons phone what if they have picture of there girlfriend, that you don't want anybody to see. That an invasion of both of your privacy. From the article power abuse .”like of their girlfriends, that they don’t want somebody else to see”. Going through a persons phone and seeing pictures of a person spouse or

Did you know that police officers and school principals are allowed to look through your personal device? Police officers should be allowed to look through your personal device. However others would say that police officers should not be able to search through your personal device. Police searching through your phone helps make swift justice. “We were able to establish who the arrested people were in contact with. It helped us to find who may also be involved in that crime,” Detective Chris Grider. Officials searching through your phone could even save lives by saving kids from constant bullying over the web. “Schools should have the right to punish students for online activity because doing so might save lives” Joseph Maneen. What that means

Police officers are held accountable for everything they do. The public is always watching. Police officers are members of the communities they work in. They are just paid to protect and serve their neighbors within that community.

Search warrants cover a variety of areas, and access to phones should be included if it is considered lawful for these instances to exist. For example, when a landlord is presented with a search warrant for a tenant’s property by the police, the landlord is lawfully obligated to allow the officers onto that property, with or without the tenant’s permission. Still, it is illegal for a landlord to consent to the police searching a tenant’s property without a warrant. This is a situation very like the one being examined with Apple and Google’s being required to allow access to communication devices. Likewise, banks are obligated to permit law enforcement officers admittance to the safety deposit box of a client if court ordered to do so, once again whether that client gives permission or not . In both of these cases, a third party is ordered to give entry to police with a search warrant, falling under the laws concerning police procedure with closed or locked containers. A phone is to be considered a closed container, and “obviously, a law enforcement officer could open a locked container with a search warrant” . Therefore, giving permission to police to get into an encrypted phone by any means necessary falls right into line with laws that exist today, and should not be seen as a breach of privacy, but merely another law here to protect