Pros And Cons Of Warrantless Cellphone Searches

The reason biggest reason that this is so controversial is the ability of our intelligence agencies acquire wire taps and search people personal correspondents without a warrant signed by a judge. However, I do not find this to be so troubling and the reason for that is, if you aren't doing anything in the way of terrorist activities you have nothing to worry about. People complain about their fourth amendment

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

The Court faced the question of whether the search of Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

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

America’s Founding Fathers believed in establishing a strong democracy that focused on the individual rights of man. The idea of moralities that humans naturally possess was a strong influence in the establishment of a country that attempts to provide a written decency that all should have a right to receive. The fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with many others, created in the Bill of Rights has become seemingly infringed in the name of security and overall welfare to all.

After the horrific terrorist attack on the date of September 11th, 2001 the U.S has passed a law to help prevent terrorist attacks. Through the use of tapping phone lines and checking citizens Internet usage. The U.S. department of Homeland Security’s purpose was to organize the National Security Agency, the Pentagon, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency. The design was intended to product the people of the U.S. It allows the government to search people’s home without a warrant. The causal factors that allow the government search through without warrant are: emails, phones and search engine searches. There is a problem the 4th amendment “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

Since its inception, the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution have been expanding and evolving because of new technology. The Fourth Amendment generally protects us all from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government (Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure, n.d., p. 1199). Court cases such as Katz v. United States and Riley v. California highlight how new technology can lead to decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States that alter the protections provided by this amendment (Hall, 2015). In 1968, the Supreme Court decision in Katz v. United States fundamentally changed the measure used to judge whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurs due to new technology being utilized by law enforcement. The 2014 Supreme Court decision in the case of Riley v. California is a more relatable case, since it involves technology that the vast majority of us use everyday (Savage, 2014). This case changed the way law enforcement is able to legally search the cellphone of an arrestee, by strengthening the arrestee’s right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

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).

We use technology every day, all day, for pretty much everything we do. Any information about ourselves, messages we send, or phone calls we make, it all takes place on our phones. However, they are also the biggest risk to our personal security as they are very vulnerable. They are not just vulnerable to scammers and hackers but also to our own government. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the president at the time, George Bush, responded by passing an act. This act is known as the Patriot Act. It allows the government unlimited access to phone records, emails, and text messages without a warrant through National Security Letters and Sneak and Peak Searches. Why do they do this, why was this act passed, they claim it’s for our safety. Both can be obtained and carried out without a judge’s approval, without a warrant, and without the knowledge of the person who is being searched. The Fourth Amendment is the right of the citizens to legal and just searches, with a warrant, with probable cause. These are not required under the Patriot Act to search through call histories and messages. The Patriot Act clearly infringes on the Fourth Amendment and the rights of the everyday citizen and does not accomplish its original goal of stopping terrorism.

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.

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.

A. Thesis: The Patriot Act is violating American’s right to privacy. Mainly, the right to hold a private phone conversation.

They feel this restricts the freedoms of the college students because of their findings that the Department of Homeland Security submitted this information to the Pentagon as a possible terrorist threat due to the information gathered by spying on the students (ACLU). In 2008, the ACLU sued the Department of Homeland Security for the invasion of privacy. The Department of Homeland Security had recently allowed officials to search laptops and electronic devices at the United States borders (Albanesius). This search of personal property could be a violation of the Fourth Amendment which guards against unreasonable searches of one’s possessions and his person. Another amendment that could be found in violation by the Department of Homeland Security because of either of these cases is the Ninth Amendment. Some have found this amendment to be a broad protection of privacy (UMKC Law Dept.). The Christian Science Monitor also voices concern over the pervasiveness of the Homeland Security Act in our daily lives even before the act was passed (Chaddock). These events demonstrate that the Homeland Security Act has some faults that lead to what some perceive as constitutional infringements and little improvement in order at the cost of freedom.

Due to intense public scrutiny, N.S.A’s practices are coming under fire from both the Obama Administration and Federal Courts. In a statement made by Judge Richard J. Leon of the United States District Courts, the phone surveillance system was condemned December 16, 2013: “The government

“The consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival” (Orwell). The world today is full of many dangers domestic and abroad. It has become a routine in the news to report on the daily mass shooting or update with the war on terror. We live in a world where being worried is justified; however, we should not give up our constitutional rights in the face of fear. The NSA’s dragnet surveillance programs, such as PRISM, are both ineffective and are surpassed by less questionable national security programs. The FISA court's’ approval of NSA actions are not only illegal, but exist as an embarrassing formality. Surveillance is a necessary