Supreme Court Case Of Timothy Carpenter

The writ questioned “Whether or under what circumstances the Fourth Amendment permits police officers to conduct a warrantless search of the digital contents of an individual’s cell phone seized from the person at the time of arrest”, SCOTUSblog.com; and it was granted on January 17, 2014 in part because Federal and State Courts had openly divided opinions over this issue. Riley v. California was argued on April 29, 2014 and a decision was made on June 25, 2014. The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. declared by a unanimous decision that a warrantless cell phone search violates the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. The court stated that the warrantless search exception (SITA) does not apply to this case because digital data store in an electronic device cannot be used as a weapon to harm officers. Although, the court recognizes that possible evidence stored on a cell phone may be wiped remotely, it also acknowledges that it could be avoided by disconnecting the cell phone from the network and placing it in a Faraday bag.

On 12/7/16, at 1008 hours, I, Officer Humphries #335, was met in the lobby of the Bladensburg Police Department by a citizen who wanted to file a stolen cellular telephone report. Upon interviewing Mr. Angela Roscoe, reporting person who stated that on 12/7/16, Mr. Benjamin Allen stolen his cellular telephone an Apple, IPhone 6 white in color with a black case. Mr. Roscoe stated that Mr. Allen, is his boyfriend, and he also through food all throughout the residence doing an argument the estimated cost of the IPhone 6 $300.00. Mr. Roscoe was issued a case number in reference to the incident.

For Timothy Carpenter, the records revealed 12,898 separate points of location data, an average of 101 each day over the course of four months”.(https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-carpenter) “The ACLU,filed an amicus brief arguing that the government violated the Fourth Amendment when it obtained the location records from Mr. Carpenter’s wireless carrier without a warrant. After a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit held that no warrant is required under the Fourth Amendment, Mr. Carpenter’s defense attorney filed a petition for review by the Supreme Court. In June 2017, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The ACLU continues to represent Mr. Carpenter before the court”.

Riley moved to suppress all the evidence the officers had obtained during the search of his cell phone on the grounds that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights reads, “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 of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be

Let's explore another case, where we have Ryan Ferguson, from Jefferson City, Missouri. Ferguson is accused of killing a popular sports editor, Kent Heitholt, from Columbia Daily Tribune, on Halloween night in 2001. Ferguson has been in prison now for eight years. The accuser is Charles Erickson, who claims that he and Ferguson agreed to rob someone for money to help them buy more alcohol. Erickson went in to the police station two years after the murder and gave the police suspicion that he knew some of what happened the night Heitholt was killed.

A phone with bank information can be a top prize for a treacherous police officer. They can go to your home, text contacts, even steal identities if you put enough information on alleged “secure” personal devices. Phone snooping violates the 4th amendment, which says "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”. When Gregory Diaz, a California resident who was seen participating a drug deal, was ordered to hand over his phone to an officer without a warrant, it violated the amendment. The Supreme Court, when notified about the case, decided that Diaz’s case was an exception to the 200 y/o rule.

Diaz that the police are not required to have a warrant in order to search the information on someone’s phone at the time of their arrest. In this case checking Diaz’s phone was lawful because it occurred during a search incident to arrest. A search incident to a lawful arrest allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person in the interest of officer safety, destruction of evidence and prevention of escape. Based on this ruling, the digital contents of a cell phone do not threaten the safety of police officers. It makes sense for officers to secure the phone to make sure there is no potential harm, but data on the phone cannot harm anybody.

Billy is on the phone with Bob while they are talking on the phone and someone coughs and it is neither of them. Well, the government are the only ones who can hack phones and listen to phone calls, the 4th amendment has allowed this to happen. The 4th amendment has gavin the right to law enforcement to be cruel and unfair about a search and seizure. Without a warrant you cannot search a person, well not anymore, the government can search anyone at any time in some scenarios. Normally, there is an abundant amount of evidence used to be given the permission to search one’s belongings, but since 9/11 law enforcement needs little evidence to be provided a search warrant.

The Fourth Amendment requires a probable cause for arrest. Substantially, particular things are needed to legally conduct a search or seizure. This incorporates arrest, so a search, a seizure, or an arrest cannot take place without reason. Not to mention, there must be a "court order" for Apple to give the government "customer data." So, since a “court order” must be in place for Apple to give the government “customer data,” that “court order” would have to also take place for an arrest that could conceivably follow.

Pleading the Fifth Technology seems to come hand in hand with modernity. It has made most tasks that used to take days to complete much easier. Technology has also improved the channels of communication. The invention of the modern day smart cellphone coupled with social media networking has allowed mankind to be in constant contact with one another from across the globe.

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

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

State of Georgia V. Marcus Dwayne Dixon (2003) Marcus Dixon was a highly recruited high school football player. His life suddenly took a tragic turn when he was falsely convicted of raping a 15 year old girl. The elements around his false conviction could have been avoided with some reform to the criminal justice courts system. Dixon initially had many charges against him but were narrowed down to statutory rape and aggravated child molestation. There was much racial disparity surrounding the jury on Dixon’s case, in that the county that Dixon committed his “crime” was a predominantly white population.

Mr. Anthony Wright was charged with first-Degree Rape, burglary, robbery and possession of an instrument of crime in 1991. The evidence against Mr. Wright is the clothing that Mr. Wright allegedly used to commit the crime, his voluntary, and complete signed confession after 14 minutes in custody and they had five witnesses to testified against Wright. There were so many flaws in this case, the clothes at the scene did not belong to Mr. Wright and the officers used two known crack dealers and three teenagers as witnesses against Wright. No one bothered to interview any witnesses to rule out Mr. Wright. He was nowhere near the victim’s home

In the united states today the government has so much power than what people may think. They have control over innocent citizens. The kind of power the government has over us has gotten to a limit where now they know where we are at and all of our private information safe on our cell phones. George Orwell’s novel 1984 gives a great example of how the government controls the people. In the novel they tell us about the government from Oceania, and how they control every single second of the citizens’ lives.