Technology And The Fourth Amendment

Riley v. California is a Supreme Court case that pertains to the Fourth Amendment; specifically, the privacy clause. This case was decided by the Court in 2014 with a unanimous decision for Riley. It came to the Court after the petitioner, Riley, was stopped for a traffic violation and then arrested on a weapons charge. The arresting officer proceeded to search Riley and removed a cell phone from his pocket. After accessing the phone the officer found evidence of gang related activity. The officer took Riley back to the station and a detective that specialized in gang related crime went through the phone and found multiple pictures and videos pertaining to a shooting a few weeks prior. They sought to enhance the charges due to the evidence found on his phone that connected him to the gangs. Riley moved to suppress the evidence that was discovered on his phone; the trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. A number of interests groups appeared as amici in this case including: EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union, Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, Constitutional Accountability Center amongst others submitted briefs in support of the petitioner. Two groups submitted briefs in support of the respondent and those include Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies and Arizona et al.

On the date of February 4th, 1965, believing that the Petitioner had been using public pay phones to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began their surveillance into the life of the Petitioner, Charles Katz. Fifteen days later on February 19th, 1965 FBI agents working the case against the Petitioner had gained access to a phone booth within a set of phone booths that the petitioner frequented on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, and summarily recorded the petitioner’s side of conversations he was having on the phone within a booth nearby. This surveillance lasted until the 25th (excluding February 22, as no evidence was obtained due to technical difficulties) the date of the petitioner’s arrest, which took place immediately after he exited the same set of phone booths. In this case there are two major constitutional questions which need to be addressed: (1) whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether the search warrant used by the FBI officers in this case violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution in that the warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; (b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “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”. It consists of two clauses, the reasonableness clause which focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure and the warrant clause which limits the scope of a search. There are many views on how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, especially by today’s standards. The world has evolved significantly since the implementation of the Bill of Rights. As it evolved, time brought about numerous cases on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. When plaintiffs are not satisfied with the decision of lower courts, they can

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

In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Katz v. the United States, to revise the Fourth Amendment “unreasonable searches and seizures,” to cover electronic wiretaps. (Iannacci, 2015) Charles Katz a handicap basketball player conducting illegal gambling bets using three outside telephone booth (pay phones) nearby his residence to place and receive bets from gamblers. The FBI caught onto Katz’s operation, so they decided to bug the telephone booths pending investigation using the wiretaps. Katz was later detained for recorded conversations of conducting an organized illegal gambling operation. Katz defense was that the FBI surveillance on the phone booths was unconstitutional. Katz argued that his Fourth Amendment had been violated because the phone booth was made of glass, leaving him visible to the outside world with an uninvited ear should be protected under the Fourth Amendment because it’s a way of private communication. However, the clause that applies to all

The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which was established in the seventeenth and eighteenth century English common law. Aside from the rest of the amendments in the Bill of Rights the Fourth Amendment can be traced back to a strong public reaction from some cases back in the 1760s. Two of these cases happened in England and one case happened in the colonies. These cases involved some pamphleteers who would pass out pamphlets to the public in order to spread their word around. These pamphlets however ridiculed the king and his ministers. After finding this out the king issued warrants to have the pamphleteer’s homes ransacked and stripped of all their books and papers. Even back then the pamphleteers knew that their rights

In the twenty-first century there have been many advances in technology which grant us view of more places than we used to be able to see. But with that where do the boundaries lie when using said technology. The history of the Fourth amendment helps to shape how we think about certain issues today, because some of the earlier cases serve as a precedent for the modern fourth amendment cases. There are four different advances in technology that have caused some issues with the rights of the people but also with the rights of the state. These include the use of unmanned vehicles, the use of thermal imaging, the use of GPS surveillance, and how

Until now, many people argued that searching of historical cell phone records affects people’s privacy, but some other argue that the fourth amendment gives extreme protection for people’s privacy and it puts the country’s safety at risk. In general, it’s obvious that the fourth amendment gives extreme privacy to people since searching for the call history of a person to find just the location and time of call of a person without getting deep into its contents doesn’t touch the privacy of a person but at the same time gives an important information for

The Fourth Amendment Precludes worry about government trespassing. David Sirota author of the website”Does the government actually understand the 4th Amendment?” says "Mother Jones Reports that an 86 page court ruling determined that the government had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and engaged in unconstitutional spying"(understand). Cornell University law school states, "electronic surveillance is also considered a search under the fourth amendment.” (Fourth amendment). Cornell University also states,"A seizure of a person, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, occurs when the police's conduct would communicate to a reasonable person."(Fourth Amendment).According to the American Civil Liberties Union the NSA examines

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Evidence that is acquired in violation under the Fourth Amendment is prohibited in a court of law and unconstitutional.

Do you think that officials checking in a personal device is illegal and ruins our 4th amendment? Some people protest about how officials should not be able to use personal information even if it’s for safety. Officials should be able to use personal information from devices for the safety of the people.

The Supreme Court first described the term, search, in the Boyd v. United States decision in 1886. The decision was based on the consideration if a search and seizure was equal to compulsory production to the privatization of the man’s papers. When Boyd was charged with illegally importing thirty-five cases of glass plates into New York, the government proceeded to retrieve the glass forfeited to the United States. In addition, the government wanted Boyd to provide an invoice about the prior shipment of glass plates. Boyd argued for an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment and the Supreme Court agreed in his favor. The decision clearly defined that the court was not going to tolerate the corrosion of the Fourth Amendment (Fuqua 2014).