250 word discussion response robert

250 word discussion response robert.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution requires law enforcement to obtain a search warrant prior to searching an individual’s property. One question before the court was whether or not this protection would include our movements and phone calls being tracked by a third party, like a cell phone provider. Notably, in a reply to the government’s brief, Carpenter’s attorneys referenced Riley v. California: “Yet, this Court and lower courts have recognized that Fourth Amendment cases from a prior era cannot be applied mechanically to ‘modern cell phones, which are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.’ Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2484 (2014) (refusing to extend to cell phones the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement). ” (Timothy Ivory Carpenter v. United States). Thus, cell phones have become such a large part of daily life, and with them come complexities prior law simply could not have predicted. Therefore, Carpenter’s attorneys hoped the court would review the outdated law.

The court held, in a 5-4 decision, that a warrantless search of cell phone records is unlawful and extended Fourth Amendment protections to cell phone data. This was a victory for privacy advocates and asserts that government cannot, without a warrant, obtain such information. I agree with the court’s decision because my movements and my conversations are my business, and should I plead the Fifth Amendment protection of self-incrimination, law enforcement just did an end-run on my Fifth Amendment rights by going to a third party that also knows my movements. And for that matter, correlation is not causation: Just because I was near a crime scene does not mean I committed a crime. It is how the government may choose to use this information that has grave implications for the innocent.

I disagree with the dissenting opinions. Those that fall on original intent are, in my opinion, weak. Justice Kennedy’s dissent asserts the cell-phone companies actually own the data, individuals do not: “Here the Government did not search anything over which Carpenter could assert ownership or control. Instead, it issued a court-authorized subpoena to a third party to disclose information it alone owned and controlled. That should suffice to resolve this case.” (Carpenter v. United States). So is a subpoena to a third party sufficient? It turns out five justices, and I, disagree.

250 word discussion response robert