Mr. Chief Justice Pratik Parikh

2282 WordsApr 23, 201610 Pages
Mr. Chief Justice Pratik Parikh delivered the opinion of the Court. On June 10, 2013 Annapolis police, acting under state law, compelled Verizon Wireless, Inc. to provide “cell site location information” or “CSLI” emanating from Respondent Arnold Santo’s cell phone from April 1, 2013 through June 5, 2013. The CSLI information was secured without the benefit of a warrant or probable cause. Nevertheless, with the information gathered, police were able to determine a pattern in the Respondent’s locations and communications that indicated a significant likelihood of his participation in a criminal drug ring. The police were able to obtain a warrant to search Santo’s home on the basis of the CSLI along with other information about the…show more content…
We granted certiorari. (2015). This Court has been asked to determine if Santo’s Fourth Amendment rights have been violated. We are asked to determine whether the government 's reliance on CSLI data -- and the subsequent search of Santo’s house -- violated the Respondent’s Constitutional rights. Respondent argues that the government violated the Fourth Amendment in gathering and inspecting the CSLI without a warrant based on probable cause. This Court agrees. The Fourth Amendment provides that, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” 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. This Court has addressed what constitutes a search in
    Open Document