Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Justices Appear Divided on Cellphone Warrants
This article talked about whether or not police should need a warrant to search cell phones of people they arrest. The justices provided various ways to allow searches on some, but not all arrests. The largest part of the argument was whether or not the searches needed to be done in order to keep police officers safe. Do you think police should need a warrants to search phones after arrests?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ReplyDeleteI find this very interesting to think about. Obviously when the constitution was being written technology such as cell phones was not at all part of the agenda. As time goes I think questions about the law pertaining to technology will only grow. “Our rule has been that if you carry it on your person, you ought to know it is subject to seizure and examination,” Justice Antonin Scalia said. I agree with Justice Scalia, if it could be a potential danger, better safe than sorry.
I'm on the fence about this issue. On the one hand I feel as though people have the right to have their privacy protected, and police need a warrant to search their cellphones. On the other hand, though, I feel as though if they were already arrested, they could have gone through to erase evidence after the arrest, so police should search in order to make sure they don't miss any potential evidence. As Erin said, it's a tricky issue because we cannot relate back to the constitution or most previous cases to see what the standard is. I'm intrigued to see where this idea goes.
ReplyDeleteLike Lydia, I am split on this issue. If the person has already been arrested, I would think that the phone would already be evidence. However, in the case with one of the men mentioned in the article, the man was pulled over because of an expired auto registration and after the officer looked through his phone, he was able to search the man's car and find loaded guns, which tied him to a gang. If the officer hadn't looked through his phone, the police probably would not have known about the man's activity with the gang. This will definitely be a difficult decision for the Supreme Court and I look forward to their ruling.
ReplyDeleteThe two cases present clear cut examples of the privacy vs. safety argument. Obviously, I am in favor of the gang member's arrest, but that's a pretty rare circumstance I'd think. Our phones have access to our entire lives. It's pathetic, but there's no denying it. Giving officers the right to rummage through one's phone if their taillight is out isn't right in my opinion. I'm siding privacy argument as I believe a warrant is necessary.
ReplyDeleteI feel like depending on the specific situation I would have different opinions on this policy. I think that people have a right to privacy, and as long as the accused isn't suspected of harming someone that there is no need to further incriminate them.On the other hand if there could be evidence on a phone that would prove the accused to be a serial killer, then I would say "search away." I think that as a general rule it is best to have warrants, because if we didn't require them then this could lead to other privacy violations.
ReplyDeleteI believe a police officer should have to have a warrant in order to search a suspect's cell phone. I mean, they need a warrant to search your home, so why wouldn't they need one to search your cell phone. Even though the phone could hold potential evidence, I believe privacy should win in this case. I also think that if officers are granted the right to search phones, than it should depend on the crime that the suspect is being arrested for. (E.g. Shoplifting)
ReplyDeleteI can see why there would be some disagreement between the justices, especially when I can clearly see and somewhat agree with both points of view. On one hand, I agree with what Scalia said in regards to that if its on your person you should expect that to be considered to be searched. But on the other hand, it's your own device and you should be entitled to having the privacy to keep that to yourself. I don't really know where I'd stand on this issue because there's just so much more to it than "yes" or "no" if you support requiring a warrant. Every situation is different, and especially because technology like this is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, it's hard to interpret a meaning or determining the constitutionality of searching a cell phone without a warrant. I can see this becoming an issue of increasing importance and notoriety in the coming months.
ReplyDeleteThis is a hard issue to decide on because there are so many different situations that need to be handled differently. Phones are always going to be evolving, so I think it will be hard for the judges to come up with a concrete ruling of what, if any, parts of phones can be searched that will be able to last for a long time. Obviously privacy and general safety need to be balanced, but i'm not exactly sure where that line should be drawn.
ReplyDeleteLike Michaela, I think I would have different opinions from hearing different examples like the ones mentioned in this article. The right to privacy is extremely important, but in some situations safety needs to be put above that in order to keep people from getting seriously injured or possibly killed. It will be difficult for the government and the public to find a consensus on this topic, because the details will always be changing. It would be hard to choose privacy or safety completely over the other, because some situations could be harmless or have serious danger like these ones mentioned.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting how guidelines that were written so long ago, like the Bill of Rights, are redefined with our constantly growing society. With technology exploding in recent years, it's tough to keep up. Like Justice Elena Kagan said, “Most people now do carry their lives on cellphones.” I think I would have different opinions on each individual situation in this type of political argument.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting issue and I can see why the justices are so divided over it. I tend to agree with the justices that don't think a warrant should be required to search a cell phone. Because evidence on a cell phone could be so easily destroyed, it would be necessary for a police officer to search the phone on the spot.
ReplyDeleteThis must be especially difficult for the courts to decide, knowing that this decision could be applied to future cases with even different technology. With the growing advancements in technology, our rights to privacy have to be reconsidered each day. I understand the need to search someone's phone in the case of an emergency, but setting laws that make it ok to search anyone's phone, even after a minor crime or transgression could lead to a slippery slope of diminishing the average citizen's privacy rights.
ReplyDelete