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.
No comments:
Post a Comment