"right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/justice/supreme-court-cell-phones/
The article explains how police can not search cellphones of criminals without a warrant that allows them to do so. Supreme Court Justice votes by 9-0 votes that electronic devices should not be searched if a warrant is not present. In a case that involves the officers safety or there is probable cause of a crime that has happened, officers are permitted to search objects without a warrant. This argument came aboard when two suspects from California and Massachusetts, Riley and Wurie, phones where searched without a warrant. After the phones were searched, evidence officers found linked them to drugs and gang activity. This evidence was used against both men at court. After the court reviewed the evidence, Riley's conviction was upheld while Wurie's conviction was tossed out because the officers did not have the right to search the men's phones. Amendment four ties into this article because the police did not have any reason to search both men's phones, but they still did, and the amendment states that all person should be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The cops violated the fourth amendment and they did not have any probable cause to search the phones, so that was why court dropped Wurie's conviction and upheld Riley's conviction.
The article explains how police can not search cellphones of criminals without a warrant that allows them to do so. Supreme Court Justice votes by 9-0 votes that electronic devices should not be searched if a warrant is not present. In a case that involves the officers safety or there is probable cause of a crime that has happened, officers are permitted to search objects without a warrant. This argument came aboard when two suspects from California and Massachusetts, Riley and Wurie, phones where searched without a warrant. After the phones were searched, evidence officers found linked them to drugs and gang activity. This evidence was used against both men at court. After the court reviewed the evidence, Riley's conviction was upheld while Wurie's conviction was tossed out because the officers did not have the right to search the men's phones. Amendment four ties into this article because the police did not have any reason to search both men's phones, but they still did, and the amendment states that all person should be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The cops violated the fourth amendment and they did not have any probable cause to search the phones, so that was why court dropped Wurie's conviction and upheld Riley's conviction.
The cartoon shows how a mans privacy is being invaded by reporters while he is in his own house. The mans fourth amendment is being violated because a person has the right to feel secure in their own house. The amendment protects citizens from unreasonable harassment and in this cartoon, reporters are trying to invade into a mans own personal belongings without consent from him. Every person has the right to privacy and to feel safe in their own house. The cartoon shows that the man did not give them consent to come into his house and disrupt him nor did the reporters have a probable cause to come into his property and start to try to see his information. A persons rights to privacy should not be violated by anyone, not only reporters or journalist can invade a persons privacy, also close friends or family members can invade information or privacy.
|