Reasonable Expectation

Imagine you are in the middle of your typical day-to-day activities. Maybe you are driving, spending time with family, or working. If you are like most people, your phone is at your side on a daily basis. Little do you know that, at any time, police and law enforcement could be looking at information stored on your phone. You haven’t done anything wrong. You haven’t been asked for permission. You aren’t suspected of any crime.

"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal term based on standards and norms about privacy which are held by a society. In the US, the case "Katz v. United States" was the first time the term "reasonable expectation of privacy" was used. What "...a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection…. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."[10] This decision provided a precedent to be used in future cases to determine what can be considered private, protected information. Further rulings based on this precedent have established that the expectations of a

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution holds grave importance for the citizens of the United States of America. This amendment of the Constitution is exceptionally important due to the fact, that it protects citizens from unreasonable searches or seizures. However, the phrase, “reasonable expectation of privacy” is a different aspect that is pertinent to the evolution of the Fourth Amendment, and Riley v. California. To dissect this phrase, reasonable is the important aspect here, this is where the court must decide what is and what is not reasonable, in relation to the Fourth Amendment. Privacy, on the other hand, seems to be defined inadequately. (Baude & Stern, 2016). Within this, importance comes from the actual warrant requirement

Savage reasoned that cell phone contents are deserving of Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures because people generally keep them on their person at all times. "Text messages are often raw, unvarnished, and immediate; revealing the most intimate of thoughts and emotions to those who are expected to guard them from publication," she wrote, further stating that the court "does not find that the remote possibility that an unintended party will receive a text message due to his or her possession of another person‘s cell phone is sufficient to destroy an objective expectation of privacy in such a message." But Savage's decision is unlikely to be the final word on this topic. Savage herself noted that the US Supreme Court has declined to provide guidance to lower courts. "Even the United States Supreme Court has struggled with the legal challenges raised by emerging technology, most especially in the realm of cellular phones and their contents," she wrote.

Judges across the nation have written tomes about whether a cellphone is akin to a “container” — like a suitcase stuffed with marijuana that the police might find in the trunk of a car — or whether, as the judge in the Rhode Island murder case suggested, it is more comparable to a face-to-face conversation. That judge, Judith C. Savage, described text messages as “raw, unvarnished and immediate, revealing the most intimate of thoughts and emotions.” That is why, she said, citizens can reasonably expect them to be private.

the United States, the idea of “reasonable expectation of privacy” became related with the Fourth Amendment, and anything that trespasses the “reasonable expectation of privacy” violates it. Antoine Jones had a reasonable expectation of privacy as he went about his everyday life for the 28 days he was monitored.

Prior to Katz v. United States, Olmstead v. United States (1928) held that eavesdropping electronically did not represent a search according to the Fourth Amendment (p. 32); although, this precedent was altered after the opinion concerning Katz v. United States was delivered. Justice Potter Stewart asserted that the Fourth Amendment does not protect places, but people. If a person is making an attempt to keep something private, it’s possible that the constitution preserves such rights (p. 33). Furthermore, even in the case that an individual is speaking on a payphone, the information is nonetheless

When a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their conversations, the conversations are protected by the fourth amendment. The government will require a warrant to record these conversations to be able to admit them in court.

According to the U.S. Constitution Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (US Const. amend. IV). Based on this amendment, the officers should obtain a search warrant before they got to the local cell phone carrier and asked their help to “clone” Mr. Doe’s cell phone. When Mr. Doe sent his messages and received messages from others, he definitely expected those information were his privacy and without his permission, others should not

The Supreme Court has applied the third-party ruling to telephone information in its 1979 decision in Smith v. Maryland. In that case, law enforcement agents suspected Smith of robbing a woman and making threatening phone calls to her. The telephone company cooperated with agents to install a “pen register,” a device that recorded the phone numbers dialed, but not the content of conversations. The pen register data led to Smith’s arrest and conviction. The defendant argued that the pen data had been collected without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment does not require the government to seek a warrant before obtaining call metadata. The reasoning behind the Smith case has led to the government’s ability to obtain bulk collection of telephony

Modern day cell phones, now contain many Americans private lives, they are protected under the Fourth Amendment due to the fact that they allow people to carry personal information, in the palm of their hand. Which is why searching a phone without a warrant is illegal as proven by the U.S Constitution and recently confirmed by the U.S Supreme Court.

Argument is persuading someone to come to your side or agree with your ideas. Because not everyone thinks about the same thing, writer are easily to convince their audience to come on board with their ideas. Writers persuade other people by using facts, reasons, and supporting details to support their position.

My expectations in algebra1 this year are very different from my last year expectations. This year I will always be on time, and try to miss less school as possible. I will always do my home work and pay attention to the work that is given. Supplies, I will always come to school prepared. If I do every thing I am stating here I should be more successful in algebra one.

Though the power of text messaging has many benefits to it, the misuse of this technology can cause serious problems for society. With the ability to communicate instantaneously on a mobile device, society focuses more and more on their

Recently a growing form of communication for organisations. It is time efficient way of sending information to a large number of reciepntants. It is cost effective and more likely to reach the receipatnt as they are likely to check their mobile telephone several times throughout the day. Unfortanaley text messages can be open for interpretation of tone or mood. It can also be inappropriate for some organistation communication.