...amendment, is the most important of our right than the Fourth Amendment, protection against unreasonable search and seizure is right behind it. To the framers of the constitution illegal search and seizure was deeply personal. British soldiers through writs of assistance had a blank check to search homes and personal belongings, this is likely why they included protections from such searches...
Words: 880 - Pages: 4
...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.” There are a couple of areas that of a great concern to me concerning how the Fourth Amendment is written. The first is the use of cell phones by police under the “Search Incident Arrest” (SITA) doctrine. The second is the seizure of Computer Hard Drives for criminal Investigations. In Chimel v California (1969), the court ruled that if police arrest someone, they may search the body of the person without a warrant and “the area into which he might reach” in order to protect material evidence and the officers’ safety. The origin of the SITA doctrine states that police may search a suspect, and the area immediately surrounding the person, without a warrant during a lawful arrest. The case of Riley v California (2014) in which David Leon Riley was arrested on August 22, 2009, after a traffic stop and discovered loaded firearms in his car. The officer took Riley’s phone and searched through his phone and searched through his messages, contacts, videos and photographs. They charged him with an unrelated shooting that occurred several weeks prior to his arrest and was convicted. This second case police officers arrested Brima Wurie in 2007 for distributing cocaine. Amount the items seized was his cell phone. Without obtaining a warrant,...
Words: 715 - Pages: 3
...right of 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.” STATEMENT OF THE CASE: 1. On the morning of August 22, 2009, the police charged a petition against David Riley, a college student, who was driving his Lexus near his home’s neighborhood of San Diego. The officer who stopped Riley told the petitioner he stopped him for traffic violation, which eventually led to his arrest on weapons charges. He was driving the car with expired license registration tags, as his driver’s license was suspended, police is required to impound the car. Riley was considered to be involved in the shoot on August 2, considering the current situation and moment so separate charges were also issued for shooting on another vehicle, which intension to attempt murder, and...
Words: 2028 - Pages: 9
...apartment, where he found Oliver, her boyfriend Michael Patino, and their 14-month-old daughter, Jazlyn Oliver grieving the loss of their loved one. Officer Kite noticed a few odd things about the apartment where Marco suffered his cardiac arrest. Among these things was a cell phone on the kitchen counter, a couple of stripped beds and linens on the floor, a trash can with, dark brown vomit in a toilet, and, crucially, a cell phone on the kitchen counter. Kite picked up the cell phone, and it was at that point—in the just-released opinion of a Rhode Island state court—that police proceeded to mangle a murder case and violate Patino's Fourth Amendment rights by viewing text messages without a warrant. Officer Kite viewed a text message on the phone, which was owned by Trisha Oliver, reading "Wat if I got 2 take him 2 da hospital wat do I say and dos marks on his neck omg." The message was sent from Oliver to Patino, although the sending of the message apparently failed. There were other messages on the phone "with profane language and references to punching Marco—three times—the hardest of which was in the stomach," according to court records. Patino was arrested and charged with murder. Kite claims he picked up the phone because it was "beeping," and that he thought it might help get in touch with the boy's birth father. THE COURT’S DECISION Later on during the discovery phase of the case, Rhode...
Words: 1404 - Pages: 6
...Constitutional Law Dr. Wilson April 22, 2014 Search and Seizure Response Paper I believe that the courts have put in place certain safeguards and limitations that ensure police officers do not interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. I could go into how search and seizure is defined and what is necessary for a warrant, but I want to go into a different direction and discuss how technology is changing the meaning of ; "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." These few words are meant to guarantee every person in the United States two basic liberties; the right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary intrusions. With advances in new technology, the phrase " unreasonable searches has become somewhat blurred. In Katz v United States, the Supreme Court ruled that although Katz was in a public venue (i.e. a phone booth with the door closed), he still had a reasonable expectation of privacy. This was the Supreme Court's attempt to make the Fourth Amendment adaptive to the changing surveillance technology. Although the court ruled in favor of the Defendant, there is still a lengthy gap between the availability of new technology to law enforcement and laws regulating...
Words: 523 - Pages: 3
...One important reason that schools should not punish off-campus cyberbullying is that Schools do not have the right to search through or take away a student’s phone to gather evidence showing that the student is cyberbullying. According to the fourth amendment, schools do not have the right to perform unreasonable searches or seizures on a student’s personal items unless there is a written warrant stating otherwise. What the 4th amendment is saying here is that schools are not able to search or take away any student’s cellphone. Schools cannot intervene with the 4th amendment unless they have a warrant saying otherwise, so therefore they cannot assign a punishment because they can’t acquire evidence from the student’s cell phone that shows him/her...
Words: 262 - Pages: 2
...Earlier this year, there was a trial for Timothy Carpenter. His sentence was for him to serve 116 years in prison for armed robberies around Michigan and Ohio. This case caused a big argument involving the fourth amendment of the Bill of Rights that states, “The United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any search warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.” The prosecutors used Carpenter’s cell phone records for evidence to confirm his robberies. They said that his phone was connected to the cell towers that were near the locations he had been robbing. The cell phone providers saved records for their own reasons and allowed the government to use them for the purposes...
Words: 378 - Pages: 2
...toward the people. Without the Fourth, the government would have total control of all property owned by the people without their consent. The right guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment is as follows: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall...
Words: 962 - Pages: 4
...against unreasonable searches and seizures case. David Leon Riley belonged to a gang activity that took place in Lincoln Park in San Diego, California. On August 2, 2009, Riley and his group of buddies opened fire on a rival gang passing by. The shooters then got into Riley’s car and drove away. As couple weeks pass by, petitioner David Leon Riley was arrested on August 22, 2009, after a traffic stop that resulted in the discovery of a loaded firearm in his car. The officers took Riley’s phone and searched through it. As the police searched through the phone they charged Riley with a related shooting that had taken place several weeks prior to his arrest. Riley moved to suppress all the evidence that the police had obtained from his cell phone. The court denied the motion, and Riley was convicted. Issue: Was the evidence admitted at trail from Riley’ s cell phone discovered through a search that violated Riley’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search. Decision: Yes. The First Circuit reversed the denial of the motion to suppress and vacated the relevant convictions. Reason: The reason the First Circuit Court reversed the denial of the original motion to suppress made by The California Court of Appeal was because the court held that the warrantless search exception during an arrest exist only for the purposes of protecting officers safety and to preserve evidence. In this cases nether of which was a issue in the search of digital data. They found that...
Words: 552 - Pages: 3
...County, Laura W. Halgren, J., of various crimes related to drive-by shooting, and he appealed based on his challenge to evidence found during police officers' warrantless search of data stored on his cell phone. The California Court of Appeal, 2013 WL 475242,[->0] affirmed. Second defendant was charged with drug- and weapon-related crimes, and the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Stearns, J., 612 F.Supp.2d 104,[->1] denied his motion to suppress evidence found during warrantless search of data stored on his cell phone, and defendant appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Stahl, Circuit Judge, 728 F.3d 1,[->2] reversed. Certiorari was granted. Holdings: The Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts[->3], held that: (1) interest in protecting officers' safety did not justify dispensing with warrant requirement for searches of cell phone data, and (2) interest in preventing destruction of evidence did not justify dispensing with warrant requirement for searches of cell phone data. Judgment of California Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, and judgment of First Circuit affirmed. Justice Alito concurred in part and concurred in the judgment in separate opinion. West Headnotes [1] Searches and Seizures 349 23 349[->4] Searches and Seizures 349I[->5] In General 349k23[->6] k. Fourth Amendment and Reasonableness in General. Most Cited Cases[->7] Ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment...
Words: 24946 - Pages: 100
...Rights, which protects a citizen’s right to freedom and liberty. The Fourth Amendment was added to the United States Constitution on December 15, 1791. As we know the Fourth Amendment is the right of people to be secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search 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. “ The history surrounding the Fourth Amendment provides evidence that the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was connected to the law prohibiting interference with another possession...
Words: 693 - Pages: 3
...The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments over an important privacy rights case. The defendant in the case, Timothy Carpenter, was convicted of multiple armed robberies in Michigan and Ohio. Part of the evidence used to convict included his cell phone records, which showed his phone connected to cell towers in the vicinity of the robberies. Timothy Carpenter’s legal counsel argued that the prosecution could not use his phone records against him in the trial because they did not get a warrant for them. However, the lower courts disagreed and allowed the cell phone records to be used as evidence in the case and Carpenter was convicted of 116 years in prison. The privacy rights issue brought about by new technology appears to be testing...
Words: 500 - Pages: 2
...University Of Phoenix Professor Timijanel Boyd Odom November 14, 2013 In a recent article in the Las Vegas Sun the Nevada police routinely track cell phone users without a warrant. According to "Las Vegas Sun" (2013), "Nevada law enforcement agencies have tracked the movements of citizens through their cellphones, sometimes without obtaining proper court approval, according to court records and documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada”. Last year a judged ruled that the Las Vegas police had improperly obtained the location of a murder suspect from his cell phone but allowed evidence gathered from the illegal tracking to be used at court ("Las Vegas Sun", 2013). Two police departments in Las Vegas routinely use cell phone records to track people involved in investigations and rarely without warrants. This act has become standard some obtain warrants but majority of the time they disregard. According to "Las Vegas Sun" (2013), "The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches by government. To obtain a search warrant, authorities have been required to show a judge enough evidence to establish probable cause”. Law enforcement agencies all over the country have been using cell phone tracking to investigate cases but have been keeping it a secret. The requirement for search and arrest warrants is that in order to be obtained the police must have probable cause. The police must also have probable cause to arrest without a...
Words: 474 - Pages: 2
...request of the National Security Agency, several of the major phone companies were asked to provide phone records for all calls made within the United States, and all calls made to the United States from other countries. The data the NSA received, provided information on the phone number the call was made to and from, the call’s duration, the date of the call, and the time of day. No Financial data, nor content of the calls, were ever obtained by NSA. This action proceeded without a warrant for any of the information provided. In addition, there was no individual suspicion since this was considered “meta-data” or “bulk data collection” of phone records. The vast majority of the data was analyzed by computer programs and never looked at by NSA personnel. Before we delve into an analysis of the court’s decision in this case, it is prudent we first address an important point. Prior to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, few American’s contemplated a threat to homeland security. Today, the fear of terrorism is ingrained in our daily thoughts. Following the events of 9/11, American’s sense of safety nearly vanished, and the direction, and scope of national security were forever changed. The National Security Administration (NSA), a key governmental counterterrorism agency, is responsible for ensuring national security. With this in mind, we believe that a reasonable person would consider the data obtained through these phone records to be of use to the NSA in stopping future terrorist...
Words: 2770 - Pages: 12
...they own their cell phones; it makes sense, considering one bought it and pays for it. However, police have the power to tap into cellphones, and often they do. This has caused plenty of controversy about the values of the Fourth Amendment that prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and which additionally requires a judicially issued warrant. There are many arguments against cellphone tapping or “tower dumping,” due to it being an invasion of privacy. Furthermore, that hasn’t been the only strong argument against tower dumping; this act has raised question regarding what is done with all information gathered and who specifically are authorities are targeting. It’s no doubt devices serving the purpose to tap into cellphones...
Words: 970 - Pages: 4
