The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law. On the other side of the scale are legitimate government interests, such as public safety. The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment depends, in part, on the location of the search or seizure.
Marylandthe justices ruled that no Fourth Amendment violation had occurred when, without a warrant and at the request of the police, the phone company installed a device to record all of the phone numbers that a robbery suspect called from his home, leading to his arrest.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, at least, has suggested that it should not: United Statesin which the justices will hear oral argument this fall. The petitioner Fourth amendment the Fourth amendment, Timothy Carpenter, was accused of being the mastermind behind a series of armed robberies in Ohio and Michigan.
Such requests have become a common tool for police officers investigating crimes — according to Carpenter, they are made in thousands of cases each year.
After his arrest, Carpenter argued that the records should be suppressed because the government had not obtained a warrant for them.
But the district court disagreed, and Carpenter was convicted and sentenced to almost years in prison. A federal appeals court upheld his convictions. Carpenter then asked the justices to weigh in, which they agreed to do in June. At the heart of this argument is the idea that, as Sotomayor has suggested, times have changed, and cellphones are different from the more primitive phone technology and bank records at issue in Smith and Miller.
But even under Smith and Miller, Carpenter continues, he would still prevail.
To determine whether he can expect his records to be kept private, he contends, the justices should look at whether he voluntarily gave the records to his service provider.
Moreover, he suggests, another factor that the justices should consider — his privacy interest in the information revealed by the records — weighs heavily in his favor. Most people have their phones with them all the time, he emphasizes, which means that cellphone records can show where someone was and what he was doing at any given time, even in places — most notably, at home — where he would expect privacy.
Moreover, the data that can be obtained under the SCA are generated simply by the act of carrying a phone that has been turned on: First, the government contends, Carpenter does not have any ownership interest in the cellphone records turned over to police by his service providers.
Cellphone users like Carpenter know or at least should know how their phones work: But no matter what they decide, their ruling could shed significant new light on what limits the Fourth Amendment will impose on efforts by police to benefit from the significant technological advances in the 21st century.THE FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AT HOME: WHEN PARENTAL AUTHORITY GOES TOO FAR KRISTIN HENNING* ABSTRACT Although .
The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure provides the bulwark for police regulation and many other government functions in the United States. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
(Newser) - It's being described as a landmark decision in favor of privacy: The Supreme Court ruled Friday that the government in most cases needs a warrant to track a person's location by. The ACLU works tirelessly in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the Constitution’s promise of liberty for everyone in our country.
The Fourth Amendment provides a major source of privacy for individuals against government surveillance. This amendment requires that no one will be “searched” unless the government has shown.
|Constitution Toolbox||Article the first [Not Ratified] After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitutionthere shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.|