A Washington police officer stopped a student at the Washington State University after observing the student was carrying a bottle of gin. After asking the student for identification the student informed him that is was in his dorm room. The student, followed by the officer, then went into his room get his identification. While the student was searching for his identification, the officer noticed that the student 's roommate, had marijuana seeds and a pipe on his desk. The officer asked the students if they had additional drugs in the room and the students provided him with a box with marijuana and money.
at 2480. The police seized and searched Riley’s smart phone without a warrant, which uncovered further evidence of gang relationships. The police discovered records that placed Riley’s phone at a shooting three weeks earlier. See Riley, 2013 WL 475242, at *1–2. The trial court judge denied a motion to suppress after finding that the search fell within the scope of the search-incident-to-arrest exception.
If a natural disaster strikes my area and the power is out for weeks, one of the limitations would be that the people would not feel that safe. Security wouldn't be enforced and since there is no security, there could be several possibilities of theft. Another limitation would be searches for any and everything. Both of these limitations should be practiced, so even if there is a national disaster we could be ready. The 4th amendment can be used as an explanation of how the limits
(SI,2020) Ultimately, Hernandez was acquitted of the double murder charge but was charged with unlawful possession of a
In United States v. Miller the Supreme court ruled that using the bank records of a man to convict him did not violate the Fourth Amendment, even though law-enforcement officials did not have the warrant to look thru the bank records. This was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment because the bank records contained only “the information voluntarily conveys to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business.” By getting any working cellphone, it is known that the information that goes in and out of the towers such as the times the calls were made, data usage, and the general vicinity of the person does not violate privacy, and it’s rather a known agreement with the person using the cellphone and the cell phone
“Riley v. California”) Bensur and Brokamp say in their article that in court, Riley claimed that his Fourth Amendment right was violated because the officers did not have probable cause also called reasonable suspicion to examine his phone. The case went to the Supreme Court and the judges agreed that the police had acted
The judge in the specific Milwaukee case stated that “A person wanted on probable cause (and an arrest warrant) who is taken into custody in a public place where he had no legitimate expectation of privacy cannot complain about how the police learned his location” This argument doesn’t make much sense if you change it to be about something other than a phone. If the police searched the man’s house without a warrant in order to learn his location, then in court any evidence that they obtained within the house would be thrown out. The judge is pretty much
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Consitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The common misconception is that it simply covers what it states. In the age of development and new technology, it is likely that what we consider secrets or personal information is not as secret or personal as we once believed. Important pieces of evidence or information have often been found through illegal means, and this has led to many cases that change the way the constitution and the Fourth Amendment affect
There are many rights that American students are free to enjoy. One of them being the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. This right is commonly questioned by many. There are many instances that people have brought into courts as prestigious as the Supreme Court.
The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures (Hall, 2014). In the scenario, it is important to remember that the employer is a government entity and the Fourth Amendment was originally designed to limit government authority as it applies to unreasonable searches and seizures (Hall, 2014). You would not be able to make a strong argument that the government violated the Fourth Amendment in this scenario. The property, whether it is a laptop, cell phone, or tablet, belongs to the government. Government entities have policies that employees must read and sign specifically acknowledging there is no expectation of privacy on these devices owned by the government.
The whole point of the Fourth Amendment is not to completely stop the police, because the amendment can be waived if an officer has a warrant, or a person’s consent. The Fourth Amendment states that generally a search or seizure is illegal unless there is a warrant, or special circumstances. Technically stating that a citizen is protected by the Fourth Amendment, until a government employee gets a warrant, and then they can invade a citizen’s privacy. Also people state that the FISA Court’s warrants are constitutional, but the NSA’s surveillance is unconstitutional. Even though people do not like the NSA’s surveillance, the NSA is legal because the FISA Court that the people did not mind makes it legal.
The fourth amendment can be beneficial but, it can also to some U.S. citizens be invasion of privacy. The fourth amendment 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,” some U.S. citizens believe that Law Enforcement, the Government and the NSA are violating the required guidelines of the Fourth Amendment. The NSA is conducted a mass U.S. surveillance not to believe specific individuals may be engaging in terrorist activity, but instead to believe all of us may be engaging in such activity. The government mass surveillance proves that U.S. citizens are considered suspects at all times. With the Patriot Act the NSA has access to
Cell phone can unveil information within our call history, text messages, pictures, and even internet searches. Access to our cell phones is like access to our lives. No matter how much time passes, the fourth amendment continues to
Electronic surveillance is also under the Fourth Amendment, so the law enforcement cannot watch you with any type of electronics of any sort. Furthermore, your personal items: backpack, house, or phone are considered your property so the law enforcement can search any of them without the citizen’s permission or proved as reasonable. Although of all of the advantages of the Fourth Amendment, a disadvantage is that for the law enforcement it makes accumulating evidence
That's my tracker,” by Peter Maass and Megha Rajagopalan they talk about how every personal information that a citizen has safe on their phone is not safe and that their phones are in danger. In the article, they mention how “1.3 million of call data was collected”. Millions of cell phone users have been swept up in government surveillance of their calls. That proves that cell phone companies have definitely been watching our every move and how our phones have obviously become like our personal trackers. In the article, they also mention how “Cellular systems constantly check and record the location of all phones on their networks – and this data is particularly treasured by police departments and online advertisers” this obviously shows that the government is able to obtain private information from citizens.
