Riley Vs. California

          I believe it is necessary for the police to obtain a warrant before searching through a person's cell phone, therefore, I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. In cases of emergency such as "finding a ticking bomb or a kidnapped child" (Smith 17), I believe a warrantless search is acceptable because lives are at stake. Many people have very personal conversations on their cell phones, which is why it is important for there to be solid evidence suggesting there is something incriminating on the cell phone before searching it. According to the article, these electronic devices "hold the most intimate details of a person's life" (Smith 17), therefore, they should be protected.
Even though the writers of the Fourth Amendment were not expecting such devices such as smart phones, tablets, and laptops, all of the Supreme Court justices agree that the devices fall under the amendment. Because the police did not have permission, the nine justices ruled that "they violated his Fourth Amendment right to privacy" (Smith 15). Most would agree that cell phones should be included in our right to privacy. Many people keep their most private information, such as personal conversations, photos, and bank records on their cell phones. Today rather than jotting down notes on a piece of paper, the average person could more than likely store that information in their cell phone. Because of their easy accessibility, they have just become a common keepsake for most information. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Argues that just because "technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand, does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought" (Smith 16). Cell phones also provide information like where exactly a person was at a certain date and time. Because of all the private information stored on a person's cell phone, I believe the devices should be protected by the Fourth Amendment, meaning a warrant must be given before they are searched.

Time Capsule Unearthed from 1795

            On Thursday, December 11, a time capsule was discovered from underneath the State House building in Boston Massachusetts.  Works came across it while attempting to repair a water leak.  The capsule was buried by Paul Revere and Samuel Adams in 1795 when Adams was the governor.  It was originally put there when they began construction on the State House's iconic dome.  As soon as the workers fixing the leak stumbled upon it, the Secretary of State William Galvin, who happens to be the head of the state historical commission, contacted Pamela Hatchfield, the head of object conservation at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.  The was controversy on whether or not the box should be removed from where it was buried, which was a barricade of stone.  The decision was to try to carefully chip away at the stone to see if the box was fully intact and if it was, to hopefully remove it.  After seven hours were spent trying to extricate the capsule, it was finally removed.  The contents are of concern due to time and other obvious reasons, however, the plaster surrounding the container was in good condition.  In the box, there is believed to be several coins and a plaque inscribed by Paul Revere.  Other contents are expected be found inside as well. Even though the capsule has not been opened yet, it has been x-rayed.  It is expected to be opened over the next week or so.

            I believe this is related to American Government because the contents were put there by people who had a huge say in the founding of our government.  People who were of the first in our nation thought that what ever was in that box was important enough to be locked away and discovered at some point in the future after they were long gone.  There could be words written that change the way we look at government or statements that affirm the way our Founding Fathers and earliest Patriots wanted government to be.  There was some dissuasion on what should be done with the capsule after it is opened and such.  As of yet, the decision is to rebury it and possibly add objects to it.  I admit this happening was not exactly an issue but an interesting, semi-controvertial situation that I believe was handled in an appropriate way by everyone involved including the press.