The Pros And Cons Of Law Enforcement

There is a debate in the Supreme Court on Wednesday on whether law enforcement has the right to track location or not. During an 80 minute argument, the Justices debated whether the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to search the person’s cell phone location history. The Justices do believe that the laws should keep up with technological advances. "Most Americans, I think, still want to avoid Big Brother. They want to avoid the concept that government will be able to see and locate you anywhere you are at any point in time," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "This is no different than a telephone company having access to your telephone conversations." In any case, previous internet, bank, credit card, and telephone records are

The person can't prevent the company from destroying it." "Why is that less intrusive? The whole question is whether the information is accessible to the government," said Chief Justice John Roberts. "Yes, the technology affects every aspect of life. That doesn't mean that the warrant has to." "This is an open box. We know not where we go," added Justice Stephen Breyer, speaking to the tough constitutional choices that have to be made. "The electronic information is infallible. You can follow them forever. That's a big change" from prior pre-digital search and seizure cases, he said. Since 1976, the high court have been discussing the so-called “third party” doctrine when it ruled bank records obtained without a warrant could be used to prosecute a Georgia moonshiner. Back in 2012, the Supreme Court unanimously said the police cannot attach Global Positioning Systems on a suspected drug dealer’s car to track his movement. Two years later, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled the police need a warrant to search the cellphones that are seized during arrest. In this case, the idea that there is no “physical intrusion” of the device flagged questions whether one’s privacy is being

Technology is booming, but if people believe their rights are being violated, they will not like the idea of them losing privacy. This will open doors for more debate over the rights of the citizens and if we actually have them. For example, we are a free nation, but to be free, we have to give up some rights. We know of the rights we have to give up, but Americans don’t know that they give up their right. Plus, some Americans don’t know the government has the right to get those records.This won’t just affect my neighborhood, but the whole nation. It is because almost everyone owns a cell phone and will be affected by the decision made. The debate over the Fourth Amendment will be affected by the outcome of this court