Riley v. California in 2014 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court argued whether the police has the right to search and seize digital content without a warrant, from individuals who have been arrested. So, the main question of the case was whether the evidence admitted at trial from Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment right. The court ruled, by a unanimous vote that a warrantless cell phone search during an arrest is unconstitutional.
Imagine a person takes your phone and starts going through your photos, messages, notes, and emails. People have private information in their cell phones which they don’t want people to look at. Law enforcements today are taking phones and search them without a warrant when they are arrested. The federal government is able to know where you are located just by easily tracking your phone. There are people who think it’s a great idea because police and catch criminals easier.
A gang unit detective investigated photos and videos on Riley’s phone and found Riley making gang signs and also found other gang paraphernalia as well as gang affiliation stored on the cell phone. Riley was later tied to the August 2nd shooting via ballistics tests. Separate charges were brought against Riley, who was charged with shooting at an occupied vehicle, attempted murder, and assault with a semi-automatic
”If the use of technology goes heightens the body 's natural ability it will require citizens to take severe measures to protect privacy, and will crumble the promise of privacy in the home insured by the fourth amendment. One should not have to take irregular precautions to protect what can’t be felt, heard, tasted, or smelled due to new technologies. Moreover the fourth amendment does not require
That's my tracker,” by Peter Maass and Megha Rajagopalan they talk about how every personal information that a citizen has safe on their phone is not safe and that their phones are in danger. In the article, they mention how “1.3 million of call data was collected”. Millions of cell phone users have been swept up in government surveillance of their calls. That proves that cell phone companies have definitely been watching our every move and how our phones have obviously become like our personal trackers. In the article, they also mention how “Cellular systems constantly check and record the location of all phones on their networks – and this data is particularly treasured by police departments and online advertisers” this obviously shows that the government is able to obtain private information from citizens.
I still don’t agree to this because with the 4th amendment we have the right to privacy from the government, and that means all personal property can not get searched without the presence of a warrant. Also I love having my freedom with my phone and knowing that the government can check on anyone whenever they feel like you are a little weird so they check your personal
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 case that I have found to write about is the case of Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins and the New York Police Department in New York City which happened in September of 2013. This case was originally tried in the state of New York court in New York City. It was based on the fact that a NYPD cop didn’t properly fill out a search-warrant application that turned up a weapon as well as a handgun and a cocaine cache. Unfortunately, Mr. Wiggins is an accused drug dealer with a prior record and he may likely walk due to “a technicality.” Therefore, the New York City Police Department as well as the New York City police union were very upset because a dangerous person may be back on the streets due to a supple mistake.
Case Briefs: Case: State v. Marshall, 179 S.E. 427 (N.C. 1935). Opinion by: Stacy C.J. Facts: A homicide occurred at the defendant’s filling station. At the filling station the deceased was previously drinking and was sweet talking the defendant’s wife in a whispering conversation. The deceased was asked to leave the building, yet the defendant order him more than once.
Williams vs. North Carolina (1942) The Williams v. North Carolina case is a Supreme Court case in which the court decided that the federal government determines divorce and marriage statuses between state lines. It casted doubt over the validity of thousands of interstate divorces. Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix, who were both married, moved to Nevada for six weeks to become citizens of the state, and filed for divorce from their spouses. Their spouses, Carrie Wyke and Thomas Hendrix, were unaware that the divorces were being filed.
I fear due to the recent rulings on the Patriot Act and NSA may allow people who utilize Apple’s newest feature may find that they may face a subpoena to open their phones and consequently have them used against them. As seen in the Salinas case refusal to do so may preemptively determine the defendant guilty for choosing to protect their privacy. As companies like Apple and Google push to make our communications more secure to cater toward their clientele. It will be interesting to see how the fifth amendment will apply in a digital age and to see what measures will be taken to protect or limit our
The Civil Rights Movement happened because the African American citizens finally stood and fought for their rights. The Civil Rights Movement took place in the 1960s when many cases were brought up to the Supreme Court that led to desegregating a place or even an action. One of the most important cases was the Bailey v. Patterson case. The case’s hearing, Bailey v. Patterson case, took place on February 26th, 1962 which gave the Civil Rights Movement a huge boost. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com)The Bailey v. Patterson case was between Samuel Bailey and a Mississippi general attorney.
The case of California v. Greenwood involves police who were investigating a potential drug trafficker, Greenwood. The police, who were acting on information that suggested that Greenwood could possibly be engaged in narcotics trafficking, obtained trash that Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his home. Considering the trash included items indicative of narcotics use, the police then obtained warrants to search Greenwood’s home, discovered controlled substances during their searches, and subsequently arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges.
Spring Branch I.S.D. v. Stamos Supreme Court of Texas, 1985 695.S.W.2d 556 [27 Educ. L. Rep. 640] This case examined the constitutionality of the Texas Education Code 21.920 (b) “No Pass, No Play” rule: A student, other than a mentally retarded student, enrolled in a school district in this state shall be suspended from participation in any extracurricular activity sponsored or sanctioned by the school district during the grade reporting period after a grade reporting period in which the student received a grade lower than the equivalent of 70 on a scale of 100 in any academic class. The campus principal may remove this suspension if the class is an identified honors or advanced class. A student may not be suspended under this subsection
1962 marked the beginning of a new era for the South. Baker Vs. Carr, a landmark Supreme Court Case, determined that malappropriated state legislatures were unconstitutional. The Baker Decision resulted in an increase of legislators from urban districts. Rural legislators, who were once in complete control of state capitols, could no longer dominate legislatures in the South. States would now have to be responsive to the needs of all it’s citizens.