Police Shouldn 't Be Allowed For Search A Cell Phone Of Anyone They Arrest Without A Warrant Essay

The Supreme Court held that without a warrant the police may not search a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. A warrantless search is only

The Government argued the defendants’ Fourth Amendment not violated under the constitutional because the parked vehicle was at a public lot. In some States, the Government has the authority to allow police officers to search a vehicle without the necessity of warrant. “...as long as a state is deciding law based upon its interpretation of its own constitution, the state can be more restrictive than the Supreme Court. However, if the state is interpreting the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, then they must follow the body of law established by the United States Supreme Court”(Policelink). The Government believes the attachment of the monitoring device for search was a responsible forfeiting act. As well as wiretapping the defendants cellular to help them enforce a predominantly well prepared investigation.

As human beings and citizens of the world, everyone values their privacy. It is a right that is often looked over and taken for granted by most. Since the beginning of time, there have been concerns about individuals’ rights to privacy and their personal information remaining confidential. Our founding fathers had concerns about this which is why, “…this right has developed into

The general public gives an problem with the government surveillance as a media for invading others privacy. With the government monitoring, collecting, and retaining people's personal data, one side would claim that it is an infringement of their freedom to the rights to privacy. While the National security associations justifies the reason for monitoring would be to maintain order. Their ways to maintain order would be to monitor criminal and terrorist activity and to detect incoming threats, terrorists, or problems that would harm their country. This issue shows that freedom cannot exist without order. Although the general public wants their freedom of their privacy, they can not achieve their most of their desires because it puts their lives at risk without protection. Order is necessary in order to have freedom. It is impossible to attain entire freedom for a cause, however, it is possible to attain freedom to a certain

For searches without a warrant, then its mandatory to comply with standards of probable cause is the court. Even the searches being made for a criminal cannot be made without the existence of a proper probable cause. Therefore the officers don’t have the right to lawfully carry on searching and arresting people without having the proper probable cause with them.

When it comes to Search and Seizure, allot of people think that law enforcement should not be allowed to search or seize property. I have heard many arguments against this subject, people stating that law enforcement officers go too far or have no right to search someone’s property such as their vehicle. Probable cause is more than a reasonable suspicion it requires that a combination of facts makes it more likely than not that items sought are where police believe them to be. In addition to establishing probable cause for a search, a warrant must contain the reasons for obtaining it, the names of people presenting the affidavits, what is specifically being sought and the signature of the judge issuing it.

Based on the 4th Amendment, I agree with the outcome in Supreme Court case Riley v. California No. 13-132 that search warrants are needed to search a cell phone. This case started when David Riley was stopped by police officers on August 22, 2009 in California for a speeding violation. When the police pulled him over, the found unauthorized weapons in his vehicle, leading to the cell phone search. The police repeatedly found terms associated with a local street gang, this lead to his arrest. After searching the cell phone in the police station, the officers found pictures that linked him to a shooting that occurred a few weeks earlier. Riley was convicted for possession of firearms, shooting at an occupied vehicle, and attempted murder. He was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. The California court of Appeal affirmed this.

Section 8 everyone has the right to be secured against unreasonable search and seizure (Class Lecture, 2013).

Should school officials and police officers be allowed to search through students phones? School officials and police officers should be allowed to search students phones. School officials and police officers need to be able to check students phones, so they can keep everyone safe. Some people think that school officials shouldn’t be able to search students phones, instead it should be the parents problem.

(Nolo)” Several police officers tend to abuse their authority to attain evidence out of their reach. They often abuse their power because they know that the average citizen does not know their rights. Consent is a huge factor when it comes to determining if a search is lawful or not. The trial case of Arizona vs. Evans also determined that “the rule is not triggered when courthouse errors lead police officers to mistakenly believe that they have a valid search warrant, because excluding the evidence would not deter police officers from violating the law in the future. (Greenhalgh)”

The officer that was responsible for this was Sgt. Michael Kite of Cranston Police Department in Rhode Island. The reason why is because he didn’t have a warrant to search the phone and without the warrant

However, in Riley v. California (2014), the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that police must obtain a warrant to search an arrestee 's cellular phone. The Court said that earlier Supreme Court decisions permitting searches incident to an arrest without a warrant do not apply to "modern cellphones, which are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy," the court also noted that citizens ' cellphones today typically contain "a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives — from the mundane to the intimate." In Arizona v. Gant (2009), the Court ruled that a law enforcement officer needs a warrant before searching a motor vehicle after an arrest of an occupant of that vehicle, unless 1) at the time of the search the person being arrested is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment of the vehicle or 2) police officers have reason to believe that evidence for the crime for which the person is being arrested will be found in the vehicle. With the holding Terry v. Ohio (1968), The Court allowed police to frisk suspects for weapons if the officer had a reasonable suspicion for stopping the suspect and if the officer was concerned for his safety.

The extent of this problem is exhibiting startling cases involving similar issues. According to a Boston Law Review, this is certainly not the first case to be presented to the Court that questions the integrity of searches and seizures of cellular devices. Warrantless searches have actually been legal under the Fourth Amendment for roughly sixty years. While this may sound astonishing, smartphones were not around for most of this time-frame. In 2013, United States v. Wurie was a case that preceded Riley v. California with its own unique set of factors, while still remaining prevalent to the issue at hand. Within the case of United States v. Wurie, a cellular device was searched upon arrest, which sounds oddly comparable to the case presented. So, in this case, the court held that even though there was a legal search and arrest, this did not warrant a seizure of the Wurie’s cellular device. This was considered to be invasive, and negated an individual’s expectation of privacy (O’Connor, 2013).

Or I fit consider as an unreasonable search. In fact, according to the Fourth Amendment it is not allowed to search or seize without a warrant. The issue in Riley’s case was that the police officer searched his phone without a warrant that gives him the green light to search or seize. However, there are some exceptions in the Fourth Amendment which may allow the

As a growing topic of discussion, privacy in our society has stirred quite some concern. With the increase of technology and social networking our standards for privacy have been altered and the boundary between privacy and government has been blurred. In the article, Visible Man: Ethics in a World Without Secrets, Peter Singer addresses the different aspects of privacy that are being affected through the use of technology. The role of privacy in a democratic society is a tricky endeavor, however, each individual has a right to privacy. In our society, surveillance undermines privacy and without privacy there can be no democracy.