US Government and Cell Phone Privacy Essay

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

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.

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

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.

Then there are those individuals who oppose the warrantless cellphone searches. The main reasoning for the opposition is that it is in direct violation with the Fourth Amendment which has a ban on unreasonable searches. The national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Steven R. Shapiro, calls the ruling “revolutionary” and feels that “we have entered a new world but, as the court today recognized, our old values still apply and limit the government’s ability to rummage through the intimate details of our private lives”. Amos Toh, New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice reasons that this decision can prove to be a powerful protection against overzealous government searches that may come up in the future. “Today’s

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 outlook for search and seizure (The fourth amendment) is all about privacy. Citizens have the right to deny searches or seizures of property or things unless the officer has a valid search warrant, valid arrest warrant, or probable cause."Probable cause has to come from specific facts and circumstances, not simply an officer's hunch, feeling, or suspicion." ("Search and Seizure", 2018). The police have grounds to believe they will notice proof that you just committed a criminal offense, and a judge issues a warrant or the actual circumstances justify the search while not a warrant initial being issued.

What is more, the exclusionary rule provides that the extra evidence obtained because of unreasonable search or seizure will not be used in a court of law, as it will be considered “fruit of the poisonous tree.” In essence, the exclusionary rule excludes any evidence collected out of unlawful searches. For instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may infringe on one his right to privacy by obtaining information from the individual his computer, as this will amount to unreasonable search and disrespect to the individual his privacy rights. As such, it is unreasonable for the government agencies such as the Department of Justice to obtain information from Google, Yahoo, Facebook, or any other online service provide, as this may be presumed by a court of law as unlawful and unreasonable search that amounts to infringement on one’s privacy rights (O 'Brien and Michael, pg. 1889).

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.

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 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).

Most Americans feel trapped by the government. They believe that the government is spying on them just to do so and that there is absolutely no reason for it. However this is wrong because the government has several reasons to spy on us Americans. Even though this may seem outrageous, it is needed and there are ways the United States’ citizens have privacy. With all of these false accusations it is simple to see why people would be supportive of our right to privacy. On the other hand, the government eavesdropping on the people of the United States has helped save many lives and justice being served. The United States of America is a free country, so we should have the option to be spied on by the government; however, as citizens we do

An estimated 91% of American adults own or have used cell phones. (#8) When people buy cell phones, most of the time they have to sign a contract or read terms and conditions. When the phone is purchased it likely has a good amount of the person’s information on it, and is used for social networking and communicating with others. When the person buying the phone accepts the terms and conditions, they basically sign their privacy rights away. Sure not anyone can come up to them and go through their phone, but the phone company can access their info if the right was slipped in the terms and conditions, and there isn’t really anything stopping them from doing that. (#11) So people can complain that their privacy is gone, but they did sign away their right with greed. Although a cell phone has almost become a need in today’s society, it is still only viewed as a want. Therefore, no one has to purchase a cell phone. There aren’t really any laws saying that the

The fourth amendment to the United States constitution tells us that ”the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”. In other words, it is illegal for persons to go through your things without your consent or knowledge. This is fairly straightforward and simple, right? Not exactly! Patricia Dunn was accused of hiring private investigators to investigate members of the board of Hewlett Packard. These investigators used a technique known as pretexting, a practice of getting your personal information under false pretenses (Federal Trade Commission, 2008). In this case the investigators called the phone company

The number of crimes that are being committed each year is extremely high, and America is out of control. According to, Jenicks (1) from prospect.org/article/violent-crime-increasing , “We also have more rapes, robberies, and assaults than other rich countries. But this is nothing new. Crime rates have always been much higher in America than in other affluent nations.” With that being said, a controversial topic that follows that, is the government having full access to monitor cellular usage. The government would take part in monitoring, for safety. Cell phone surveillance can only happen today, with a warrant and a court order to do so.