Directions: Please read the following article and write a comment that makes connections to other things we've read/talked about/learned about in this class. The comment should be about a paragraph in length and should be thoughtful and articulate.
Cell phones carry a lot of personal information. More than we would like to give credit.This makes a cell phone a very valuable object, especially in court cases. But, you cannot simply steal someones phone for evidence, you must go through the process to get the phone. The system is set up so that if getting a piece of evidence is needed, then it will happen. But I feel that police officers sometimes take advantage of their position of authority and use fear to get what they want, even if it helped the case. I feel like the constitution needs to be strictly enforced so it does not become overlooked.
It's crazy to think that a man who got convicted of murder got sent free because the police searched his phone without a warrant or permission but I think this is how it should be. Since a person pays for the phone and the subscription it should count as their property and the police should not just have easy access to a person phone unless of course they have a warrant. If there is ever a law that makes it so police and other government officials can just look through your phone without a warrant or permission then their will be an uproar of the people fighting for their rights.
I feel that it was good for David Riley to get away with his crime. Although I dont aprove of the murder he committed and stuff I do feel that the first and fourth amendment really did help him in this situation. Now im not saying anyone should carry guns in their car or be involved in local gang violence but this is just one example of how these amendments actually do help you like that guy yesterday. The man was preaching to young people about God. Now he has that freedom, freedom of Religion, and speech. Im sure the cops had something to say about it but he technically wasnt on school grounds nor was he harming anyone. All he was trying to do was get youngs attention about God. The cop probably told him that its bothering people and stuff and that he needed to leave but why should he, he has those rights and he was using them to get to others about God.
Personally, I agree with the law making it so police can't go through or seize any of your personal belongings, including cell phones, without a warrant. Though it may cause less people to be convicted for crimes, it is still that person's personal business in which nobody should have the right to look through. This law should stay as it is, in my opinion. Cell phones are becoming a necessary component in our everyday lives. They make normal everyday tasks so much easier and the help us get through our day by allowing us to be more social and simplifying things. The 225 year old constitution may need a little updating here and there to cover some of the things the founding fathers didn't intend on being created and that the amendments didn't cover.
There have been many cases in which cops over and over again invade an individual's right to privacy resulting from a basic traffic stop to a person put in jail of which evidence of other criminal activity were found after the fact. Invading a person's electronic devices is correct in that it carries some of the most sentimental and intimate moments, data and information of a persons life. The fact that we carry such a relationship with our electronic devices and trust them so is what makes them more and more off limits to search without a warrant. We are sensitive to this, simply when someone takes our phones without our permission, good or bad, there is a sense of loss and slight offense on occasion.
Well, I do think that the fourth amendment is certainly important to our society. But I think police should be able to go through your phone if they have a logical and reasonable explanation on why they are doing what they are doing. Sometimes they should need a warrant, but other times, I think they should just be able to, only if they absolutely feel they need to. I believe most people won't let you look through something because you're clearly hiding something. But I still believe you should say no if you really don't want them to for whatever reason, because its an amendment.
I do believe that going through someones personal belongings without a warrant infringes on our 4th amendment rights, but in such cases like the David Riley case where they already went through his phone without a warrant and found evidence. I believe that they should be able to use the evidence found, regardless whether a warrant was issued or not. I do not condone the law going through everyones' belongings without consent but when they have already done so and found hard evidence of a crime, i believe they such be allowed to use it. Like in the David Riley case, the court overturned his conviction because the police did not get a warrant for his phone(where the evidence was found). Since they obviously knew he had committed a crime, why overturn the conviction?
With all the new technologies today in society, a lot of questions are coming into light about peoples' rights, especially the right to privacy and freedom of speech. The biggest issue the government is facing is whether technology should be protected under the 1st and 4th amendments. Personally, I am against cyberbullying and do not think that it should be protected under the 1st amendment. However I do understand how the other side is considering it as "freedom of speech" but cyberbullying technically is slander/defamation of character which is illegal. Therefore, cyberbullying is illegal in most cases, or should be. For the privacy rights of search and seizure of electronics, there needs be a way to prohibit criminals or suspects from erasing any incriminating evidence before the police can have a look. But I do agree that the 4th amendment should carry its umbrella to electronic devices as well.
I didn't realize how the rights of the people can clash. This issue about the freedom of privacy can actually be taken away so that police can find out info involving crime. I loved the part of this article about how aliens might think that our cell phones were a physical part of us, and that 12% of the population even use their cell phones in the shower! Technology has become so advanced and dramatically influences everybodies life. This is so sad.
I can see in these articles that they're having trouble implementing the old amendments into todays technology. Such as if its unconstitutional if a police searches someones cell phone without a warrant the court calls upon that it would go against the fourth amendment unless the person allows the police to do so. Another example would be when a police stuck a GPS under someones car this was also seen unconstitutional. Something that I have noticed is if
There are many if and buts about what the constitution says. There is no difference when it comes to the Fourth Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." Effects. A persons' cell phone is part of their effects, therefore, it is protected from unsanctioned searches and seizures from the law enforcement. The Fourth Amendment states that the authorities who are requesting a search warrant have to state what they are looking for in the particular case. Well, in the case of David Riley, his 4th amendment right was completely violated. In terms of the first amendment on the internet, Congress isn't allowed to make any laws that infringe on one's rights to the freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech includes online resources. All in all, interpreting the constitution is tricky task. As the article stated, connecting a document drafted 225 years ago to modern day society is no easy task. The Supreme Court has gotten most of these cases right, in my opinion.
Most police officers tend to violate the fourth amendment because they think they have the power to do so. The 4th amendment gives someone the right to negate unreasonable searches or seizures from the police without a warrant from a judge.
I think it was unbelieveable when they let David Riley go because they searched his phone without a warrant. Because they did basically stop a killing. But I also think that we don't give cell phones or any other technological device any credit. I mean we have GPS trackers in our phone making us always detected at where we are.
as technology advances, new laws and amendments must be applied to cope with the change. in this case, it is the cellphone. it may seem easier to incriminate someone based off the information on their cellphone or other electronic devices, however it is highly unconstitutional and violates one's fourth amendment rights. the judges understood this issue at hand and thats why they established that electronic devices containing ones personal information is protected under the fourth amendment (unless police present a warrant or there is direct danger to the public). its easy to see that farther in the future there will be more court cases surrounding new technology.
I find it really hard to understand how someone who deserves to be put on capital punishment and deserves to not see the next bright of day can still get a loop pole. Look at Travon Jackson's case, or the case for Casey Anthony (the mother who killed her 2 year old daughter), or the Aurora shooting at the movies. People find anyway to be proven innocent even though they've done it. But I still have to understand that everyone has their rights to be innocent.
Knowing that the framers of the Constitution didn't have to consider individuals privacy rights with their phones and similar technology, it is understandable that technological privacy is something to question. Everyone knows that the internet, and everything in it, is very public, but does that give the police the right to invade our " digital privacy"? The fourth amendment says that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Not all phone searches practiced by the police are unreasonable. Although it is a right of the people to privacy, it is acceptable for the police to search peoples phones; after all, if one is innocent, they should have nothing to fear.
With how much our society has changed since the writing of the Constitution, it's hard to make exceptions and change things about the rights that have been given us. Yes I think that police should get warrants to obtain private property but at the same time with probable cause I think it's okay at least be able to take the cell phone as evidence and look through it if is a serious matter. Although a cell phone is private property, but people put things on there knowing that anything can be accessed from anywhere.
I hate saying this sometimes, but as times change the need for laws to properly address the times come into order. The fourth amendment says you reserve the right to be secure in your "persons, houses, papers, and effects". Even though I have no idea as to what "effects" mean I know all of those things listed are things that are personal belongings and in the time frame was written was referring to private documents in your house as "papers". The technology age has swept the nation now and the term "papers" still holds, but if everything is electronic then what do those files constitute as in the fourth amendment? Personal electronics I feel should be included into the fourth amendment as part of the need to feel secure. If the executive needs a warrant to search that even so be it. This opinion of mine I feel does not hold well still, but that's only because I know this is such a fresh issue. Until a major case contradicts my belief I do believe what I've previously stated.
Errors aside, you make a good point. Our modern day "papers" are what we put into our cell phones. Meaning, our appointments, thoughts, personal pictures, messages. All that.
Our digital privacy such as our phones, text messages, phone calls and emails should be kept privately. But if you post a nasty review or put something terrible up about another person, you posted that for the world to see anonymous or not and because of that i believe that the police have the right to search your stuff. But with a warrant though you should have that choice. But in the end its your choice to put stuff like that up.
I think the key word is "privacy" if you use your tech for your own use then that should be fine. However the problem arises when someone goes out of their way using their tech to make a nasty coment.
So you are saying anonymous posts are anonymous but, police can see them, but you have a choice for a warrant but no matter what you choose, they can still see if? This was really confusing to me.
I feel like this could be an invasion of ones privacy but if they are willing to give up their privacy for the sack of their country and legal system then by all means go for it. But a phone is considered property and it is yours. The government should have no right (unless they have a warrent) to go through your person things weather it be your house of your phone. But i do agree with the fact that, if you are innocent then there shouldnt be anything to worry about in the long haul. But if the police are asking to search your phone you should be able to voice your thoughts and say NO to them searching through it..
While it is commonly seen as wrong to go through someone's personal belongings without consent from either the owner or the court; I find that in certain situations it is alright to go through a persons' phone under the circumstances that they have been caught doing something illegal or harmful. This is what makes the fourth amendment so tricky in today's society and with the technology we have now; where our founding fathers were talking about searches through houses we now have things such as cars, phones, computers, etc. included alongside our homes that could be searched. If anything, this would tie in with the Patriot Act in terms of being able to go through internet logs, text messages, emails, and even social media if the police or government feels that the person under watch is a threat to the country; as well as tying in with the article we read before of whether or not it was right for Yahoo! to decline the search of their user logs.
I tend to agree with you there, if the situation is dire and critical information could potentially be obtained by looking through someone's phone without a warrant, then that seems like it should fall under the emergency clause of the 4th amendment. But the unnecessary search of someone's phone should be protected under the constitution for sure.
Well, as the article says, if there's an emergency situation, you don't need a warrant. Otherwise, if there's no apparent emergency, I'd like to say general freedoms are worth 15 minutes of waiting for a warrant (which you'll definitely get if they were up to no good).
I agree with the supreme court ruling that makes it necessary to obtain a warrant before searching someones phone, because as it mentioned several times, the most intimate and personal details of someones life are often kept on their mobile devices, and this trend is only growing with each new generation. Now a days a phone holds more valuable information that a lock box of cabinet at home, so not requiring a warrant for it wouldn't make much sense at all. These modernized interpretations of the constitution are some of the most relevant court rulings of our generation, as the original framers didn't necessarily write the constitution with the technological advancements of the future in mind. Although many of the articles in the bill of rights can be extended to protect the new rights introduced by the tech age, namely the 1st and 4th amendments.
It is understandably difficult to adapt the Constitution to better fit modern society. The 4th Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated". Like the article says, our cell phones and laptops and tablets have practically become a part of our anatomy now; you hardly see a person these days without some form of electronic device that could potentially be used to incriminate them. My property is mine and if the police want to look at it they need my permission or a warrant. Even if I have nothing to hide; the idea of someone snooping through my stuff is not one I'm comfortable with.
personally I believe that cellphones should be thought of as the same as cars and houses, because it's something YOU bought with your money and has YOUR personal information on it, so why should it be any different than a car or house which has the same things? This sort of reminds me of the Patriot Act how police can just search or follow you without a warrant. When I Supreme court making it law that a police officer needs a warrant, I try to think of that that actually does, because the Patriot Act rules that out, I think loopholes like this should definitely not exist and should be taken care of with one clear ruling on the case: Do police officers need a warrant to search yoiur phone? Or just a reason to.
Cell phones or technology in general are the consumers property and whatever is in them as well. However so is a gun that was obtained leagly for a consumer of the product or good. i think it all depends on the intent or the product and the use for it. For cyberbullying, you can use your property to damage or hurt others but that doesn't mean there won't be consequences. Same goes for someone with a gun, it is their property but they have restrictions in place to protect the people from other people that may cause harm.
In this modern age of technology, the boundary for where the 4th amendment protects is thin. We know that it protects homes and personal belongings to be illegally searched. Just like this David Riley case and and how it violated his constitutional rights. Another example of the 4th amendment right violation is the united States v. Montoya Court case. For those who do not know her story, she landed in Los Angeles from Colombia. She was suspected for smuggling drugs across the boarders. Then, the authorities illegally searched her body. The x-rayed her and then found around 90 balloons of 1 pound cocain. The court ruled that her rights were violated and she was set free. Both of these examples show that, no matter the crime or circumstance, The rights in the constitution will always be protected.
This article reminds me of the other article we read, about how the U.S. Government wanted Yahoo to give up people's information when Yahoo refuses to do so. In both cases, the fourth amendment still needs to be taken into consideration. The Constitution wasn't made by people who can predict the type of technology we would have in the future, but I feel like they made it open enough to mend to future technologies. Information in people's devices do contain their private life and should be considered as a right to privacy.
phones are like carbon copies of the people using them and they hold valuable information that could provide the police with valuable information but seizing a personal affect is a violation of our 4th amendment rights i'm all for my rights but i feel like its a double edged blade because then crimes that happen on the net like cyberbullying or theft go unpunished because those people too use their rights. They need to make specific laws for cases like cyberbullying and etc.
Although the 4th am. does talk about our privacy, Im not sure how I feel about this. Yes, the cops didnt have a warrant, but does that mean, even after they find out what this guy did, should drop the charges?
Like so many other issues involving the police, as well as the 4th amendment, we see questions about what constitutes due process in certain situations. For the things like the Patriot Act we see what allegedly affects a smaller scope of people, whereas in this ruling we see SUPPORT for a proper process for everyone. That's pretty important, because we largely see a sacrifice of freedom for security, and it's good to know that we're defending that. The fact that a cell phone is electronic and has all that digital information doesn't mean that what you store there should be any less private. This is way left field, but with the recent leakage of information and pictures among various stars, people have said "if you didn't want people to see them don't take them, bleh", but their technology is supposed to be private. It's things they kept locked away behind code, or hid in their rooms or their pockets or their bags. It's a moving vault. Now, perhaps people have the right to access things you make public, such as on social media sites, but your phone is yours. Besides, it takes 15 minutes you get a warrant, and you CAN TAKE the phone, you've just gotta wait to look at it. :\
This is totally an issue that pertains to our generation. Although I don't think that i will be arrested at any point in my life, this does mean that a lot of bad criminals will not be caught on any major offenses, but minor offenses. I believe that when a police officer has reason to arrest you, you are stripped of your privacy rights. Although this is not the way things work, I wish they would work this way. If a police officer decides to look through your cell phone, he must have a damn good reason.
It understand why it can be hard for people to see what amendment protects you because its the constitution was made in the 1800's and now we have new ways and technology. I think police need warrants to search cars, phones and houses because thats personal stuff and if you aren't guilty they know a lot about your life. But then again they did catch that guy Riley that was in a gang and they didn't have time to go get a warrant because they saw the guns when they pulled him over and if they went to go get a warrant he could have ran and hid. This is a lot like the Patriot Act, invading personal space and accusing with no good evidence.
I feel like it shouldn't even be question that a person's phone is protected by the 4th amendment. A phone is more than something used to call people with now. A phone is pretty much a reflection of a person's life and it's somebody's personal belongings they can't just take and go through your phone the same why they can't just enter your house and start going through all of the things inside.
I see how this connects to what we're learning, the fourth amendment specifically. However I don't think the founding fathers had future technology in mind when designing guidelines. Technology is only making life easier and easier. Now I don't think the same standard should be held today. Considering, this man attempted murder, I think we should think long and hard on whether we should hold true to the bill of rights written long ago, or change alongside our environment and punish accordingly.
It honestly doesn't surprise me that a legal technicality like this would overrule Riley's conviction. Of course it makes me feel angry and frustrated as it turned out that he was involved in a gang, but the Fourth Amendment did protect his right to privacy. I think when it comes to your privacy, it certainly comes with a cost. Remember SOPA, the whole censor the internet? We need to realize how the government will take any opportunity to be a watchdog over the American people. Letting Riley get away based on the fault of the police to have a search warrant is a victory for petitioners of privacy, but there are so many shades of grey. Crucial evidence from a computer that could have been used by the prosecution to convict Casey Anthony was never accessed until after she walked free. Objectively, Riley had the right of privacy. I just still question how technicalities like that can work for a society's safety.
I agree with the Supreme Court's decision because the police officers searching through Riley's phone did violate his 4th amendment right. I'm not saying that it's a good thing that Riley got away with participating in the shooting, what I'm saying is that even in situations like this; people's rights should be respected and honored or else they could be turned into a farce that can be infringed at will.
Technology has the effect of making life both easier and more complicated. I believe that electronic devices should be included in the fourth amendment but with a few conditions. If the situation were dire like a possible terrorist attack or other like situations a warrantless search should be allowed. Police should be able to seize a suspected criminals electronics but have a warrant to search it. Although this may limit our rights to privacy, just like the Patriot Act, the act is for the nation's safety.
I'm glad the supreme court ruled that you have to obtain a warrant to search through someones phone. It is a win for people that want privacy and don't want a bunch of police or government looking through their phone when there is most likely nothing there. I think holding the phone until they obtain a search warrant is also a good idea. If you give it back to the person who was accused or guilty before they could go through it then they could delete some information that would be valuable to law enforcement.
Issues of privacy indeed seem to be coming under fire lately, especially considering how readily available sensitive information is with modern technology. I believe it is the right thing for a warrant to be issued before someone's personal electronic devices can be searched, but an issue I see arising is when the device itself is being searched. Exactly how much can they search say your phone? Does a search warrant mean they can go through everything on your phone if they suspect there's pertinent information? The 5th Amendment says that a warrant must contain the place that is being searched and what exactly is being searched for. It's a bit more difficult to go through someone's entire computer to find a single file and not inadvertently or, as some would fear, purposely view anything sensitive, especially now that things like online banking are becoming the norm. It's also interesting to imagine how this plays against the Patriot Act. If Investigators can get a warrant to obtain business records, does that include your phone? Would anything not pertinent to the case but still incriminating be admissible as evidence or the basis of a separate case?
I believe it would be wrong for a police officer to go through someone's phone without consent of the owner or the courts. The only way this would be acceptable, according to the 4th amendment, is if the police officer had a probable cause to go through the cell phone. But what would give the officer the cause to do that? Say you get pulled over by a cop, and as he is approaching your window he sees a bottle of alcohol in your backseat. Right then and there he would have a probable cause to search the rest of your car to see if there is anything else. But, only your car. I don't believe finding that bottle of alcohol would be a probable cause to go through my phone. Just an example.
Technology now has made life for teens easier but at the same time harder. We have become more dependent on technology for help with homework and searching things and having it all at our finger tips. But at the same time when we use it, we think everything is secured and private when we have passcodes and everything on our phones or passwords and everything but really it's not and our privacy is being invaded by all companies that can look up our information on the website and all of that. So privacy really isn't privacy anymore. And even though many may say that the police men were invading David Riley's privacy, they really weren't. It was right in my opinion to actually look through his stuff and actually find all that information and catch him and put him in jail even though they didn't have his permission. Because if they didn't do that then he would still have been out killing people and getting away with it. So there fore it was ok for the police men to do that even though it shocks me how technology is worked now a day and what ever you send someone else is reading or seeing it out there somewhere in the world.
From reading this article it falls into the invasion of privacy that is becoming less and lesser as technology progresses, carrying loads of information in a single hand held device, etc. I think it's appropriate to have warrant for looking into personal electronic devices before it is searched. In the 4th amendment a warrant must be issued on where it's used at and what's being searched for, if within those finds that another issue is discovered it can be used against one person, to protect their privacy. Sadly when it comes to technology, the information that you did within the past few months to a few seconds can be find within a single click.
im glad to see that the courts understand that even in a digital word some things are still part of our privacy and that cell phones have so much personal, sentimental value that they need to be protected under the 4th amendment.
It's completely understandable that the justices would rule to have a warrant to look through electronic devices, as it is a privacy right we have (4th amendment). I would like to think that they would put themselves into the situation of Riley and believe they have a right to privacy in this situation. Also, {Sonja Sotomayor is amazing!!!!} The way that this article relates to class is that (A) It relates to the constitutionality issues; and (B) It also relates to the 4th and 1st amendments that we were given way back in the olden days.
Does government have a right to privacy as well? Or do government workers (like Snowden) have a freedom of speech? What came first, the chicken or the egg?
In this modern era, the Supreme Court's main task is interpreting how the antique laws drafted by the framers of the constitution translate to modern era. In the time when the constitution was ratified, the idea was that no military or police could come into a citizen's home without their permission or the permission of the courts. Then, the home was considered a person's own private property where they could live their life without prosecution from the government. This is the same way for modern Americans and their private personal devices.
The issue of privacy is a constant reminder of how no citizen is really safe and granted privacy from the government. Because technology is constantly being tracked nowadays, it is very easy for police make arrests and investigate the persons of said suspicious activity. However, what the police are forgetting are the constitutional rights that these individuals have, and police may not search a person's phone without a warrant. Such incidents like these are going to be very common in today's world, and will surely need to be addressed as a whole, fairly soon.
After reading this article, it is obvious that there are many different ways to interpret the Constitution. For example, the rights of the people established by the Fourth Amendment have to be molded to fit modern times. This is difficult because the privacy of the people and the rights of the government (and police) often clash, with obvious pros and cons on both sides. This makes it difficult to make a decision that is constitutional and satisfies both sides.
Just like the 4th Amendment says, no unreasonable searches and seizures. A police needs to have a warrant to search a home, that shows that he has a reason to do so. So if you are pulled over for speeding and he wants to search your car and phone, he would need a warrant for that as well. He needs to prove he has a reason and that he isn't just doing it just because.
Cell phone privacy is definitely a big issue that needs major attention. since a cell phone is part of someone's personal property, it is still an item that should need a warrant to search otherwise it goes against the amendment for the right to our privacy. Even though there is so much data and information stored on our electronic devices, it is our right as people to keep it hidden until there is a valid reason and permission to search them.
It is very easily understood that the Supreme Court and Congress are having severe problems when trying to connect the ancient Amendments with modern day technology. For one, the fact that cell phones hold a million more purposes than just calling people can help or destroy the public's privacy rights. It is critical to comprehend that a cell phone may often be viewed as a weapon or GPS when under arrest. iPhones and androids hold more power than the are aware of, and this lack of knowledge by the public can seriously turn them in the wrong direction. In several ways this use of technology is great because it helps the 'good guys' hunt down the 'bad guys' but at the same time any person under arrest will throw out their plea for privacy when in need of an escape.
The article brings up interesting controversies that have come up in the last few years due to the increase of technology. I agree in the fact that police should have a warrant to search your phone because that little device holds many secrets and facts that people would like to keep private. I also agree with the author in the fact that a case with the focal point being of technology and privacy rights will soon arrive at the Supreme Court. The Constitution is a flexible article that can be interpreted in many different ways, including a case like phone privacy rights. People need to start understanding that anything that they have on their phone or any place that they take their phone can be seen by the government or even a simple hacker. Over time, we should see hard decisions made surrounding this topic.
While reading this article, i thought about the constitution and the bill of rights, how might the other laws from the constitution need to change due to rising technological advancements. I also thought that, in my own opinion, i agree that it is a major privacy issue for somebody to go through your phone. In the article it states that the fourth amendment or "unreasonable searches and seizure" was an issue and i agree with that. If the police want to go through a persons phone, in my own opinion, it is the same as if they were to ask to search your home or other personal belongings, the person should have the right to say no and to request that the police have a warrant first.
Just like the police need a warrant or consent from the person to search their home, it makes sense that the same goes for going through a person's technology. It is a part of that person's property and I agree that it does violate the 4th amendment to search without consent or a warrant. Even though the evidence that the police officers had on the Riley case, it still was violating his 4th Amendment to search and seize without permission.
The question of cellphones and how they relate to the Fourth Amendment completely revolves around the ability of the Constitution to be flexible. The founders couldn't even imagine the world that we live in today. Keeping the Constitution brief and leaving it intentionally somewhat ambiguous allows the Constitution to adapt as technology advances. Having the checks and balance system allows the for its development, but not so fast that the values are uprooted. The founders designed the Constitution to be a "living document" that would be able to last for centuries.
Reading this article and comparing it to in class discussions, we have been talking a lot about what our rights are as American citizens and the privacy that we have with technology. Which we have no privacy with technology, everything can be found even years ago. Technology is used everyday and it can link us to crimes but we do have a right if they find something on our technology without having a warrant they can't use it on us in the court of law. Olivia Herting
I think that the courts made the right decision in the court case, making police obtain a warrant to search someone's personal belongings. The 4th amendment protects an individual's privacy, so it is only right that the police must have a warrant, otherwise they could unlawfully search someone's phone with personal information who is innocent, so this court ruling is a huge step for people to have more personal freedom, which has seemed to be receding, especially with recent terrorist threats.
I agree with the statement in the article that privacy comes at a cost. Cell phones hold a lot of information about people's lives therefore they can be used as good tools by law enforcement. However, this data can be wrongfully used violating our fourth amendment rights. As technology advances and becomes more complicated this is only going to be more of an issue. We already do so much with technology as a whole but when it comes to the future, i foresee us doing more in the future. This opens a whole new problem with conflicting views. The future is about convenience. But that can be good or bad.
This article greatly relates to what we have been talking about in class. One of the general rights that we have been focusing on is the freedom or right to privacy. Technology has gotten extremely advanced and because of it, everything citizens do can be tracked for accusation. IIt was wrong for the police to arrest RIley for what he has on his phone because the police looked through it without a warrant. I believe it was right for the Supreme Court to rule that the police must have a warrant before they search any of the electronic devices people on. This allows more rights for the citizens.
After reading this article, I think it is very reasonable that there needs to be a warrant before having your home or cell phone searched. I like that I have the right to say no. Because in that sort of situation where i'm asked if they can search my home or anything, damn right i'm going to say no.
After reading this article it is clear that the advent of technology raises many questions relating to our Constitutional rights. The courts are right to decide in favor of the individual in both cases, however the question must be asked whether it is right to abide so exactly to a law made 200 years ago. Obviously, the writers of the Constitution had no idea that cell phones would become a reality. They probably did't even imagine that something like cell phones were possible. Still, the right to privacy is key part of who we are as Americans. In most cases, I would think that it is the right thing to get a warrant before an officer investigates someone's phone.
Technology now both made life easier and harder for teens and also adults in general. Our generation has become extremely dependent on technology not just for our school work but also for our leisure. We put almost everything that we have into our phones and computers and once someone has looked through them without our consent then it becomes an issue since they have invaded our privacy and breaks our rights.
This issue falls under the "Living constitution" idea; making a ruling on rights based off of 18th century ideals in our very advanced 21st century. Our courts as wells as congressmen and women are presented with the tough challenge of interpreting laws and rights, and relating them to the growing social issues of today. I feel that these rulings did the citizens justice, protecting their rights under the 4th amendment. This is a growing controversial topic, but I feel we need to stick to the ideals presented by our founding fathers, and protect the citizens rights under the constitution.
To summarize how this article and how the constitution is linked to this article, the constitution is the nations set laws that everyone must follow and how much harder it is for the justice system to do their own job due to how technology has advanced over 200+ years.
After reading this article, i have realized that the advancement of technology has made it more difficult to apply the fourth amendment. The same has been applied for your phone that a police officer must have a warrant to search your phone and you have the right to deny their search if they do not have a warrant.
so these articles have a lot in common with each other and what we have been talking about in class. For instance we have been talking about our rights to the government and police enforcement. Such as the right to give up your cell phone to a police officer without a warrant. You do not have to give up your cell phone nor do you have to let the police in to your house without a warrant.
We've been going over our rights as American citizens, and this article touches upon the fourth one. It tells us that we don't have to consent to searches of our electronic devices. By doing so we give up our fourth amendment rights protecting our privacy.
I feel like people are going to be happy that their phone cannot be checked anymore. It is a huge step for American privacy. But, in the first case they had already checked his phone before the ruling and found the incriminating evidence. He still should have had to serve his time and not have gotten let go. It will be harder to catch criminals and people are in more danger also. I don't mind people watching my phone as long as they can catch criminals by watching their phone too. If you aren't doing anything illegal than you have the right to keep your privacy. I'm fine with this ruling only because it doesn't take very long to get a search warrant and there is an exception for emergencies.
I agree that it was bad that they searched his phone without his consent, or a warrant, but they still should have jailed him as you said. Having your rights infringed shouldn't mean you shouldn't serve for your crime.
This article demonstrates how citizens have rights protected by the Constitution, protecting us from accusations and arrest. We've been discussing about the topic of our individual rights in class and this article shows someone being released because the evidence against him violated his privacy. He had the right to keep his phone out of the search, which is similar to our discussions of our right to avoid police officer's questions.
The entire article is about our rights as citizens and more specifically our rights we have that are protected by the 4th amendment. We have been talking a lot about the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which includes these rights that they are referring to in this article. The whole concept of the last few days of class is knowing your rights and that is what this article is trying to inform its readers of.
Much like what we have been talking about in class, this article addresses the limits of what government, specifically police, should be aloud to do. It brings into question what really are the rights of the people and how they are adapting as modern society develops. The idea of interpretation comes up in this article and in class because the the Constitution must be applied to a society that is incredibly different than the society that framed it.
This week in class we've been focusing a lot on privacy rights and your individual rights as an American citizen. This whole article is an account of where the line of privacy needs to be drawn in this modern age of electronics and electronic data. In almost all of the cases mentioned in the article, as well as what we've discussed in class, the favor falls to the citizens (for the most part) and the courts are ruling that privacy is becoming more and more important for individuals. People are still, to this day, gaining more and more individual rights and are gaining more protection from new laws.
This article brings up the main concept of how the constitution is related in todays the society.The reasons behind the constitution were to protect the colonists from the british in times of war. Its becoming more and more difficult for government officials to be able to succesfully relate the constitution to the conflicts we face today. The privacy right as well as all the other rights are important, however they tend to create rather large issues reguarding criminals. It seems that its becoming easier to get away with things because the constitution isnt put bluntly its however people want to interpret it and quite frankly people are going to interpret it in their own favor. I do agree though that police shouldnt be allowed to just go through your phone or any personal items without permission or strong reasoning.
This issue in the article relates to the "Living Constitution" concept that we have been studying. The Constitution is constantly being edited and revised. As well as it relating to Constitutional interpretation, it also covers the issue of US citizens knowing their rights.
We've been talking about Amendments and our rights as American citizens, and yesterday I learned that without a warrant, one doesn't need to give up their belongings, cell phones included, to the police. We have these rights because of the Fourth Amendment.If I hadn't been told that I have the right to refuse to give up my belongings, I definitely would have given it up.
Hm. Interesting. Privacy? In the digital age? At this point, it barely exists. The fact that the supreme court is trying their best to give something like privacy back, which we've basically lost, is nice. Our right to privacy is slowly slipping away, especially since a lot of things have changed since 1787. The way things have changed make it harder for this right to be protected, but this is a nice step forward. P.S. I have another comment, but it's under my google name at the school. I clicked publish before you said, I apologize.
This article connects with what we've been talking about in class this week because its trying to find explain the constitutionality of individual rights when it comes to the fourth amendment. Whether or not a police can just take a person's phone without permission or permission from court. Even though if they do they are technically invading on a persons freedom of privacy. Which connects to what we have been learning this week since we are talking about knowing our rights.
Compared to what we have been discussing in class, this goes along hand-in-hand. We sometimes forget that we have the rights that we do have and the right to privacy is one that is very dire to our freedom. The Fourth Amendment was created in mind of the world that the framers lived in, and they never imagined or could fathom the world we live in. With all the astonishing technological advances we have made, information is readily there for us and some of our most private information such as bank account detail to even Social Security. Even when it comes to illegal activity, we still have those rights of privacy, even if it is illegal. It's good to know that it is harder to get caught unless a warrant is given. #ItsNotIllegalUnlessYouGetCaught
The article has a lot in common with what we've been talking about in class in that the constitution is still being looked back at and used in today's society. The supreme court is still trying to connect something that happened in the 1700's to today's issues. They want to use those core principles used in the constitution and relate them to 21st century issues. Especially the 1st and 4th amendments are majorly used in cell phone privacy cases and posting negative comments on the internet as free speech cases.
Well we've been talking about knowing your rights and knowing your rights are protected. In the cases mentioned, the 18-century amendments can still take place in this day of age and they still matter under their circumstances. I'm also still glad the courts never forgot about these old laws either.
A common issue society has been facing is whether or not it is constitutional for police to search private property, which includes not only our houses but also our cell phones, without a warrant. This issue can be traced back to the framers of the constitution. Although the Fourth Amendment was written in terms of private property and technology did not yet exist, cell phones are still a form of private property and police should be required to have a warrant. Private property goes beyond our houses and for the police to look through any of our private belongings violates our Fourth Amendment rights. This connects to what we have been learning about, knowing our individual rights.
The huge connecting factor here is our basic rights under the constitution. Seeing that we all are either legal adults, or on the border of adulthood, we need to know what our rights are and not let ourselves be either manipulated or controled by the government. Along with this, technology is continuously changing and adapting and with this, so does are rights according to these new developments.
The basis of my extensive comment was that I do not agree with the decision that was made although I understand why they did it and why it was considered unconstitutional. It connected to our class discussion because we have been talking about our rights as citizens and students
This article connects with what we've been talking about in class this week regarding the Constitution and privacy rights for U.S. citizens. This article focuses on the main issue of technology used as evidence against someone for a crime, and explains that the police aren't allowed to use our information/data found on our phones as evidence, unless they have permission from the phone's owner, or a warrant from the judge. We have been learning a lot about privacy rights as U.S. citizens, and this article divulges further into the rights we have today as technology plays an even larger part in our lives.
Our constitution has gone through a number of amendments and revisions. While many of these are mere responses to governmental aspects that the original constitution just happened to be missing, a large portion of them are in response to our constant modernization. As technology advances, our foreign relations change and new ideas are popularized, it is our job to evolve as a population--evolve our laws, our ideas and our lifestyle--in response to these external changes. Now, the idea originally represented in the 4th Amendment of "no search or seizure" without a warrant can now be applied to our technology. But should it? While our phones aren't technically our "own land" they still hold the same amount or more private information than can be found in our houses. A 9-0 vote in favor is rare in the Supreme Court, especially with their older, more conservative demographic. Regardless, they all supported the idea that phone and other personal electronics cannot be searched or seized without a warrant. Despite this ruling, the NSA continues to violate this right by using our GPS info, our web search histories and our webcams to gather information for the "safety" of our nation. If our phones can't be physically seized, what makes this action okay?
This connects what we've been doing in class because we have been discussing our individual rights, and how you don't automatically have to do something because a cop is asking. As an American citizen, you have certain rights that cannot be taken away from you, which is the same with cell phones. Phones carry a lot of vital information, so there's no reason that you should have to surrender that data.
I agree that police should have a warrant to search your cell phone. Now a days people use their cell phones for everything. Their entire lives are in their cell phones, most people cant be without them. People store their credit card information, bank information, etc. In their cell phones. I think that searching someones cell phone is the same as searching their house, or their car. It might be even more of a big deal to search someones phone than to search thier house honestly. With the increasing technology its hard for the police to stay under the rules of the fourth amendment with the privacy rules.
We have been talking about our rights a lot lately. This article specifically touches base on the fourth amendment. The common people have the right to say no when asked by police if they can have their personal belongings. Although, if you say yes you are letting go of your rights and allowing the police take advantage of that.
I agree that we as citizens should be entitled to privacy when it comes to our belongings. So police needing a warrant before searching our cell phones makes sense. I do believe that in some cases police should be able to search a persons phone without one it is an emergency and they believe that searching someone's phone will help. In class we've been talking about privacy rights and how much privacy we actually have so this article greatly relates to that.
So, lately in class we have been discussing the constitution and our rights associated with it, more specifically the ones directly relating to the Bill of Rights. We have been looking at what rights we have at any given time, whether we are sitting at home, sitting at school, driving somewhere, or committing murder, and how if we are unaware if these rights we may be taken advantage of by the police and our government. In this article they bring up the idea that the constitution may now need to be adapted to modern day technologies in order to ensure our rights even today. This helps to expand on what we have been talking about in class and even further make us aware of our rights. #Groen'sSecondPeriodIsTheBest
We've been talking about our rights as American citizen and the importance of knowing them. This article relates to this week's discussion because it talks about the rights of privacy and what the police can and cannot do according to the Fourth amendment and we've been talking about these same types of things. The police cannot perform a "search & seizure" without a warrant,etc.
We have been talking about understanding our personal rights in class recently. The court justices naturally want to abide by the constitution. However, as seen from the article, technology is still applied to the amendments. The advancement of technology has conflicted with our understanding of the amendments, but it's still being applied to what was created over 200 years ago.
This article has to do a lot with what we've been talking about in class, it's very common. In class, we have discussed about our rights to the government and the police enforcement in our society. The police does not have the right to search your phone without a warrant, and this could be taken in many ways. We have the right to not give our cell phone to the police either. In the article, the man got out of his sentence due to his rights being used for him, even though he was apart of gang activity, and attempted murder. I believe we should have our rights, but people will find ways to take advantage of our rights. It's a tough situation for us, because of the technology we have now compared to the past.
The government getting involved in peoples cell phones is just wrong, our cell phones are our personal cell phones for a reason... As the article says this invades on our rights and yes, it clearly does. The reason we have passwords is because we don't want people to see certain things or we don't want others to access our information. The government should have no right digging through your cell phone for criminal information, going to that extent shouldn't be necessary because they invade your personal privacy. We as people have things we can and can't do and that should go to the government as well and going through your phone should be something they can't do! Searching your phone is an unreasonable search in my opinion. #GoBlazers
The article directly connects with what we've been discussing in class. We have been discussing our rights given to us by the government and how we should protect those rights when dealing with law enforcement etc. I think this example is also an example of the "living constitution" concept in which our rights can constantly be tested and altered with, helping deal with advancements in technology. Cellphones were never an issue in the 1800's which is why i think the 'living constitution' is great for present and future advancements in society. #gov2014
These articles have a lot to do with what we're learning from these posts informing us about situations where they debate whether or not something should be part of your unspecified rights in the amendments,like whether cyber bullying is considered to be part of your amendment rights, from the freedom of speech. Just like whether its freedom of speech for students to talk badly about their teachers on socializing networks. Other stories sharing cases where people, like Riley's rights were violated by a police officer confiscating his phone without permission or a warrant. Though the cop found incriminating evidence, it all got thrown out because the officer didn't have a warrant and violated his 4 amendment right to privacy.
this clearly connects to our rights in the first amendment to assemble and to protest. these people clearly want our government and the rest of the world to do some sort of real actions to fight "climate change". I may not agree with the urgency they feel that we need to address any changes in our climate. i believe that if there are any changes in the climate, then they are the natural courses of our planet. I believe that there are MUCH more urgent issues that our government needs to focus on rather than blowing away MORE money unimportant things. But despite my opinion, these people have the right to protest and they are exercising that right very well. they want the government to install certain policies, and they are doing all they can to convince our government to move climate gange up on their political agenda
I think this could relate to the Marbury vs. Madison case. Through that case, the Supreme Court gained the power to determine the meaning of the Constitution. That power could relate to how they resolved the Riley vs. California case by referring back the Constitution, describing how the police violated the 4th amendment by violating Riley's privacy without a search warrant. This shows that the Constitution always rules when it comes to dealing with these sort of situations.
This definitely connects with the Bill of Rights and our first and fourth amendment. We as human beings should be able to say what we would like and be able to have privacy and that is where those amendments come in. We have nature rights that we uphold and so we have a right to live, have liberties, and have our property. Our cellphones are property and even though they may have bad things on them like criminal activity, the fourth amendment says we can not be searched with reasonable conduct. The police officer violated the fourth amendment and even though he did find criminal activity it still is not right.
this connects to 4th amendment as they said on the article , we have privacy rights and cellphone is a personal property and it says on the 4th amendment that it is not rightful to do seizures and searches without warrants. The others also connects to freedom of speech like the social media thing, can you get punish for criticizing something online or cyberbullying which is not cool but I think the bill of rights shouldn't be abused like freedom of speech especially when you can hurt people's feelings and most of the time drive them to suicide and I think Riley shouldn't have been freed based on 4th amendment cause he was involved in a shooting.
The ruling of Riley vs California was vital in the changing times of today. This is an example of a living constitution. As times change and technology advances, the constitution must change with them. Also, this article clearly relates to the fourth amendment, the right to privacy. It makes sense that a warrent is required for the search of phones because like our houses, phones contain vital personal information.
This article is very relative to what we are learning in class now about how the constitution was created and how the anti-federalists procured the bill of rights in order for them to be happy. Now as we skip ahead a couple hundred years this rights are playing a bigger part then ever. Some people are questioning to what extent they should cover. For example searching someones cell phone without a warrant is unconstitutional but it still happens all the time. Sometimes the polices excuse was that it was for emergency purposes. So its all based of the courts opinion on whether it was or not. Some people are saying that these rights were meant for a hundred years ago and we didn't have sophisticated tools like a cell phone. Technology plays a big part in catching criminals in this time period, but i believe we should still have our rights.
It's quite surprising that our government would even question whether or not cell phones and digital files should be protected under the 4th amendment. You can connect this to the Bill of Rights, and even though times have changed, we can still apply it to now. Our privacy should be protected. Now, I understand that a lot of information can be stolen, but the government should understand that the information without our phones, or laptops, or anything electronic, is very valuable. The issue of privacy can also be connected to the political agenda. It has become such an issue that law need to be made in regards to privacy on our phones. But I think that our phones deserve as much privacy as the physical files in our house.
This directly connects with our fourth amendment due to the fact that the police officer searched and seized the man's phone without a judge's warrant. Like it the article said that the founding fathers wouldn't have expected smartphones so why treat them differently under privacy laws. Citizen's get certain rights and if the government or police can just search your smartphone whenever they please, that takes rights away from a person. Phones are considered someone's personal property so no one should be able to search and seize them without any kind of permission
In class we have been talking about our amendments and the rights that we have. In this article the fourth amendment is being violated. Today we use our cellphones to store lots of personal information, since our phone is on our person everywhere we go it is easier for us to access the information that we need. We have the right to say no for the cops to search our electronical devices, they need a search warrant. The first amendment is also being violated. Students do have the right to talk bad about their teachers on facebook. Sure its not the best idea to post it for everyone to see it, but we have the right.
I think yes that Police should be able to check your phone, laptop, and whatever else you have, but only in a emergency. LIke what the article said about how the one officer saw loaded guns in the back and come to find out he is in a gang and did all that stuff and got sentenced to 15 years in prison. But on the other hand we do have our own rights to privacy. We have been talking a lot about privacy rights in class and how the police should get a warrant before because we have our own right to say no.
This article has a huge connection with what we have been learning in class over the past few days, and that is the Bill of Rights. This post has a lot to do with the first amendment and our right to freedom of speech. It also has a big connection with the fourth amendment of no searches and seizures. The law can search whatever they want on ONLY if they have a search warrant for that specific thing they are searching, and or if they have an emergency reasoning. I view this as a bad thing or a good thing because if a police officer stops a suspected criminal and they ask to search his phone and he says no then he can go kill someone, or commit another crime. But it also could be a good thing because the police think they can do whatever they want because they are the police and we have the right to tell them no and I think thats important.
The first connection I could make would be to the first amendment because we have our rights as individuals. We also have rights that involve the protection of our privacy that is included in the fourth amendment. Police officers cannot search a person with out their consent or a warrant that has affirmation or oath from a judge.
This article definitely relates to what we have been learning in class. I feel that police officers should not be able to go through your phone because, that is your property. We have been discussing our rights and people today should start using those rights. I believe that there are more important issues that police officers need to be focusing on rather than a phone. They are violating the 4th amendment.#Privacy
This an example of the power allowed the judiciary branch that they may determine the meaning of the constitution. While the legislative and executive branches have the ability to enact laws, the jjudiciary branch balances that power by being able to stretch the meanings applied, or even give the law a near 180 from its original intention.
The entire article connects to the Bill of Rights and everything we've learned about it in class. Specifically with the first amendment and also with rights that aren't directly mentioned in the constitution. Like the article mentions, it's hard to decide what should and shouldn't be a law when we're in the twenty-first century and the constitution was written in the eighteenth century. I feel like as we get more and more advanced in technology, it's going to get more difficult to make laws based on our bill of rights. While I feel that cyberbullying is definitely wrong, telling somebody not to do it does contradict our right to freedom of speech.
This article connects everything we have been learning in this class so far pertaining to our rights as citizens as stated in the fourth amendment. The debatable topic is that whether cell phones and electronics should be confiscated and analyzed. My thoughts are no. Although the founding fathers were thinking about the British when creating the fourth amendment, does not mean that rule should change although society has itself.
The Fourth Amendment protects our privacy, and that should include cellphones. Most of our lives are spent on our cell phones, and they hold a lot of private information. I think the Courts are doing what's right, they are just updating a basic principle in the Constitution for modern times. It is now a very quick process to get a warrant if police need one, and checking cell phones without one is not a priority. Like the Anti-Federalist thought, people's rights need to be protected.
Personally, in the Riley v Cali. case, the police going through his phone, even if it meant finding out that he was more than likely involved in gang related events, murders, etc, really broke his rights as a citizen. Even if searching something on the spot, and breaking the 4th amendment, allows the police to find very crucial evidence, it's not constitutionally right to do so. This article really tells you how important the supreme court takes the Constitutions basic rights in this day and age.
The article points out and connects to what we have been learning about the first and fourth amendment. The cop did violate the 4th amendment to privacy and informing us more about situations and how its somewhat like loopholes through our rights. The debates between whether or not, for example, cyberbullying, should be apart of your amendment rights because of the first amendment.
This article relays to what we are learning in class which is our first amendment which says that we have the freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition. It also talked about our fourth amendment which states that we have the right to privacy. So in this article the police take the guys phone and searches it without a search warrant or asking if he can look through it so the guy got set free because of a mistake
This article connects to the 1st amendment which is the freedom of expression and it also connects to the 4th amendment which is the security of unreasonable searches and seizures. I agree that the police should not have the right to go through a person's personal property without a warrant. Going through someones personal things just because you feel something is suspicious is not right. We have every right to say no. Although I agree with the idea of the protection of search and seizure, it is argumentative to say that sometimes it can be a good thing because we could be helping someone bad off the streets.
This can be related heavily to the Bill of Rights because the issues in this article relate to the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendment. Sometimes, it would talk about how cyber bullying would relate to freedom of speech, looking at someones phone is a violation of privacy without a warrant and since it's not in the constitution to use your phone against you. The 10th amendment comes into hand with the cyberbullying because states and schools made rules against harassing your teacher over the internet.
Police should be able to search without a warrant because searches and seizures only applied to things that simply aren't digital, because those types of things weren't even conceptualized back then.
Cell phones carry a lot of personal information. More than we would like to give credit.This makes a cell phone a very valuable object, especially in court cases. But, you cannot simply steal someones phone for evidence, you must go through the process to get the phone. The system is set up so that if getting a piece of evidence is needed, then it will happen. But I feel that police officers sometimes take advantage of their position of authority and use fear to get what they want, even if it helped the case. I feel like the constitution needs to be strictly enforced so it does not become overlooked.
ReplyDeleteIt's crazy to think that a man who got convicted of murder got sent free because the police searched his phone without a warrant or permission but I think this is how it should be. Since a person pays for the phone and the subscription it should count as their property and the police should not just have easy access to a person phone unless of course they have a warrant. If there is ever a law that makes it so police and other government officials can just look through your phone without a warrant or permission then their will be an uproar of the people fighting for their rights.
ReplyDeleteI feel that it was good for David Riley to get away with his crime. Although I dont aprove of the murder he committed and stuff I do feel that the first and fourth amendment really did help him in this situation. Now im not saying anyone should carry guns in their car or be involved in local gang violence but this is just one example of how these amendments actually do help you like that guy yesterday. The man was preaching to young people about God. Now he has that freedom, freedom of Religion, and speech. Im sure the cops had something to say about it but he technically wasnt on school grounds nor was he harming anyone. All he was trying to do was get youngs attention about God. The cop probably told him that its bothering people and stuff and that he needed to leave but why should he, he has those rights and he was using them to get to others about God.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I agree with the law making it so police can't go through or seize any of your personal belongings, including cell phones, without a warrant. Though it may cause less people to be convicted for crimes, it is still that person's personal business in which nobody should have the right to look through. This law should stay as it is, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteCell phones are becoming a necessary component in our everyday lives. They make normal everyday tasks so much easier and the help us get through our day by allowing us to be more social and simplifying things. The 225 year old constitution may need a little updating here and there to cover some of the things the founding fathers didn't intend on being created and that the amendments didn't cover.
There have been many cases in which cops over and over again invade an individual's right to privacy resulting from a basic traffic stop to a person put in jail of which evidence of other criminal activity were found after the fact. Invading a person's electronic devices is correct in that it carries some of the most sentimental and intimate moments, data and information of a persons life. The fact that we carry such a relationship with our electronic devices and trust them so is what makes them more and more off limits to search without a warrant. We are sensitive to this, simply when someone takes our phones without our permission, good or bad, there is a sense of loss and slight offense on occasion.
ReplyDeleteWell, I do think that the fourth amendment is certainly important to our society. But I think police should be able to go through your phone if they have a logical and reasonable explanation on why they are doing what they are doing. Sometimes they should need a warrant, but other times, I think they should just be able to, only if they absolutely feel they need to. I believe most people won't let you look through something because you're clearly hiding something. But I still believe you should say no if you really don't want them to for whatever reason, because its an amendment.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that going through someones personal belongings without a warrant infringes on our 4th amendment rights, but in such cases like the David Riley case where they already went through his phone without a warrant and found evidence. I believe that they should be able to use the evidence found, regardless whether a warrant was issued or not. I do not condone the law going through everyones' belongings without consent but when they have already done so and found hard evidence of a crime, i believe they such be allowed to use it. Like in the David Riley case, the court overturned his conviction because the police did not get a warrant for his phone(where the evidence was found). Since they obviously knew he had committed a crime, why overturn the conviction?
ReplyDeleteWith all the new technologies today in society, a lot of questions are coming into light about peoples' rights, especially the right to privacy and freedom of speech. The biggest issue the government is facing is whether technology should be protected under the 1st and 4th amendments. Personally, I am against cyberbullying and do not think that it should be protected under the 1st amendment. However I do understand how the other side is considering it as "freedom of speech" but cyberbullying technically is slander/defamation of character which is illegal. Therefore, cyberbullying is illegal in most cases, or should be. For the privacy rights of search and seizure of electronics, there needs be a way to prohibit criminals or suspects from erasing any incriminating evidence before the police can have a look. But I do agree that the 4th amendment should carry its umbrella to electronic devices as well.
ReplyDeleteI didn't realize how the rights of the people can clash. This issue about the freedom of privacy can actually be taken away so that police can find out info involving crime. I loved the part of this article about how aliens might think that our cell phones were a physical part of us, and that 12% of the population even use their cell phones in the shower! Technology has become so advanced and dramatically influences everybodies life. This is so sad.
ReplyDeleteI can see in these articles that they're having trouble implementing the old amendments into todays technology. Such as if its unconstitutional if a police searches someones cell phone without a warrant the court calls upon that it would go against the fourth amendment unless the person allows the police to do so. Another example would be when a police stuck a GPS under someones car this was also seen unconstitutional. Something that I have noticed is if
ReplyDeleteThere are many if and buts about what the constitution says. There is no difference when it comes to the Fourth Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." Effects. A persons' cell phone is part of their effects, therefore, it is protected from unsanctioned searches and seizures from the law enforcement. The Fourth Amendment states that the authorities who are requesting a search warrant have to state what they are looking for in the particular case. Well, in the case of David Riley, his 4th amendment right was completely violated. In terms of the first amendment on the internet, Congress isn't allowed to make any laws that infringe on one's rights to the freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech includes online resources. All in all, interpreting the constitution is tricky task. As the article stated, connecting a document drafted 225 years ago to modern day society is no easy task. The Supreme Court has gotten most of these cases right, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteMost police officers tend to violate the fourth amendment because they think they have the power to do so. The 4th amendment gives someone the right to negate unreasonable searches or seizures from the police without a warrant from a judge.
ReplyDeleteI think it was unbelieveable when they let David Riley go because they searched his phone without a warrant. Because they did basically stop a killing. But I also think that we don't give cell phones or any other technological device any credit. I mean we have GPS trackers in our phone making us always detected at where we are.
ReplyDeleteas technology advances, new laws and amendments must be applied to cope with the change. in this case, it is the cellphone. it may seem easier to incriminate someone based off the information on their cellphone or other electronic devices, however it is highly unconstitutional and violates one's fourth amendment rights. the judges understood this issue at hand and thats why they established that electronic devices containing ones personal information is protected under the fourth amendment (unless police present a warrant or there is direct danger to the public). its easy to see that farther in the future there will be more court cases surrounding new technology.
ReplyDeleteI think the Supreme Courts decision was a good one its a violation of the constitution to search anyones person or property.
ReplyDeleteI find it really hard to understand how someone who deserves to be put on capital punishment and deserves to not see the next bright of day can still get a loop pole. Look at Travon Jackson's case, or the case for Casey Anthony (the mother who killed her 2 year old daughter), or the Aurora shooting at the movies. People find anyway to be proven innocent even though they've done it. But I still have to understand that everyone has their rights to be innocent.
ReplyDeleteKnowing that the framers of the Constitution didn't have to consider individuals privacy rights with their phones and similar technology, it is understandable that technological privacy is something to question. Everyone knows that the internet, and everything in it, is very public, but does that give the police the right to invade our " digital privacy"? The fourth amendment says that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Not all phone searches practiced by the police are unreasonable. Although it is a right of the people to privacy, it is acceptable for the police to search peoples phones; after all, if one is innocent, they should have nothing to fear.
ReplyDeleteWith how much our society has changed since the writing of the Constitution, it's hard to make exceptions and change things about the rights that have been given us. Yes I think that police should get warrants to obtain private property but at the same time with probable cause I think it's okay at least be able to take the cell phone as evidence and look through it if is a serious matter. Although a cell phone is private property, but people put things on there knowing that anything can be accessed from anywhere.
ReplyDeleteI hate saying this sometimes, but as times change the need for laws to properly address the times come into order. The fourth amendment says you reserve the right to be secure in your "persons, houses, papers, and effects". Even though I have no idea as to what "effects" mean I know all of those things listed are things that are personal belongings and in the time frame was written was referring to private documents in your house as "papers". The technology age has swept the nation now and the term "papers" still holds, but if everything is electronic then what do those files constitute as in the fourth amendment? Personal electronics I feel should be included into the fourth amendment as part of the need to feel secure. If the executive needs a warrant to search that even so be it. This opinion of mine I feel does not hold well still, but that's only because I know this is such a fresh issue. Until a major case contradicts my belief I do believe what I've previously stated.
ReplyDelete*laughs* I am seeing plenty of grammatical errors by myself. I guess I forgot to proof read. Excuse me.
DeleteErrors aside, you make a good point. Our modern day "papers" are what we put into our cell phones. Meaning, our appointments, thoughts, personal pictures, messages. All that.
DeleteOur digital privacy such as our phones, text messages, phone calls and emails should be kept privately. But if you post a nasty review or put something terrible up about another person, you posted that for the world to see anonymous or not and because of that i believe that the police have the right to search your stuff. But with a warrant though you should have that choice. But in the end its your choice to put stuff like that up.
ReplyDeleteI think the key word is "privacy" if you use your tech for your own use then that should be fine. However the problem arises when someone goes out of their way using their tech to make a nasty coment.
DeleteSo you are saying anonymous posts are anonymous but, police can see them, but you have a choice for a warrant but no matter what you choose, they can still see if? This was really confusing to me.
DeleteI feel like this could be an invasion of ones privacy but if they are willing to give up their privacy for the sack of their country and legal system then by all means go for it. But a phone is considered property and it is yours. The government should have no right (unless they have a warrent) to go through your person things weather it be your house of your phone. But i do agree with the fact that, if you are innocent then there shouldnt be anything to worry about in the long haul. But if the police are asking to search your phone you should be able to voice your thoughts and say NO to them searching through it..
ReplyDeleteWhile it is commonly seen as wrong to go through someone's personal belongings without consent from either the owner or the court; I find that in certain situations it is alright to go through a persons' phone under the circumstances that they have been caught doing something illegal or harmful. This is what makes the fourth amendment so tricky in today's society and with the technology we have now; where our founding fathers were talking about searches through houses we now have things such as cars, phones, computers, etc. included alongside our homes that could be searched. If anything, this would tie in with the Patriot Act in terms of being able to go through internet logs, text messages, emails, and even social media if the police or government feels that the person under watch is a threat to the country; as well as tying in with the article we read before of whether or not it was right for Yahoo! to decline the search of their user logs.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with you there, if the situation is dire and critical information could potentially be obtained by looking through someone's phone without a warrant, then that seems like it should fall under the emergency clause of the 4th amendment. But the unnecessary search of someone's phone should be protected under the constitution for sure.
DeleteWell, as the article says, if there's an emergency situation, you don't need a warrant. Otherwise, if there's no apparent emergency, I'd like to say general freedoms are worth 15 minutes of waiting for a warrant (which you'll definitely get if they were up to no good).
DeleteI agree with the supreme court ruling that makes it necessary to obtain a warrant before searching someones phone, because as it mentioned several times, the most intimate and personal details of someones life are often kept on their mobile devices, and this trend is only growing with each new generation. Now a days a phone holds more valuable information that a lock box of cabinet at home, so not requiring a warrant for it wouldn't make much sense at all. These modernized interpretations of the constitution are some of the most relevant court rulings of our generation, as the original framers didn't necessarily write the constitution with the technological advancements of the future in mind. Although many of the articles in the bill of rights can be extended to protect the new rights introduced by the tech age, namely the 1st and 4th amendments.
ReplyDeleteIt is understandably difficult to adapt the Constitution to better fit modern society. The 4th Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated". Like the article says, our cell phones and laptops and tablets have practically become a part of our anatomy now; you hardly see a person these days without some form of electronic device that could potentially be used to incriminate them. My property is mine and if the police want to look at it they need my permission or a warrant. Even if I have nothing to hide; the idea of someone snooping through my stuff is not one I'm comfortable with.
ReplyDeletepersonally I believe that cellphones should be thought of as the same as cars and houses, because it's something YOU bought with your money and has YOUR personal information on it, so why should it be any different than a car or house which has the same things? This sort of reminds me of the Patriot Act how police can just search or follow you without a warrant. When I Supreme court making it law that a police officer needs a warrant, I try to think of that that actually does, because the Patriot Act rules that out, I think loopholes like this should definitely not exist and should be taken care of with one clear ruling on the case: Do police officers need a warrant to search yoiur phone? Or just a reason to.
ReplyDeleteCell phones or technology in general are the consumers property and whatever is in them as well. However so is a gun that was obtained leagly for a consumer of the product or good. i think it all depends on the intent or the product and the use for it. For cyberbullying, you can use your property to damage or hurt others but that doesn't mean there won't be consequences. Same goes for someone with a gun, it is their property but they have restrictions in place to protect the people from other people that may cause harm.
ReplyDeleteIn this modern age of technology, the boundary for where the 4th amendment protects is thin. We know that it protects homes and personal belongings to be illegally searched. Just like this David Riley case and and how it violated his constitutional rights. Another example of the 4th amendment right violation is the united States v. Montoya Court case. For those who do not know her story, she landed in Los Angeles from Colombia. She was suspected for smuggling drugs across the boarders. Then, the authorities illegally searched her body. The x-rayed her and then found around 90 balloons of 1 pound cocain. The court ruled that her rights were violated and she was set free. Both of these examples show that, no matter the crime or circumstance, The rights in the constitution will always be protected.
ReplyDeleteThis article reminds me of the other article we read, about how the U.S. Government wanted Yahoo to give up people's information when Yahoo refuses to do so. In both cases, the fourth amendment still needs to be taken into consideration. The Constitution wasn't made by people who can predict the type of technology we would have in the future, but I feel like they made it open enough to mend to future technologies. Information in people's devices do contain their private life and should be considered as a right to privacy.
ReplyDeletephones are like carbon copies of the people using them and they hold valuable information that could provide the police with valuable information but seizing a personal affect is a violation of our 4th amendment rights i'm all for my rights but i feel like its a double edged blade because then crimes that happen on the net like cyberbullying or theft go unpunished because those people too use their rights. They need to make specific laws for cases like cyberbullying and etc.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the 4th am. does talk about our privacy, Im not sure how I feel about this. Yes, the cops didnt have a warrant, but does that mean, even after they find out what this guy did, should drop the charges?
ReplyDeleteI agree. The guy is a bad dude, and if we have proof that he was involved in a shooting, he should be brought down.
DeleteLike so many other issues involving the police, as well as the 4th amendment, we see questions about what constitutes due process in certain situations. For the things like the Patriot Act we see what allegedly affects a smaller scope of people, whereas in this ruling we see SUPPORT for a proper process for everyone. That's pretty important, because we largely see a sacrifice of freedom for security, and it's good to know that we're defending that. The fact that a cell phone is electronic and has all that digital information doesn't mean that what you store there should be any less private. This is way left field, but with the recent leakage of information and pictures among various stars, people have said "if you didn't want people to see them don't take them, bleh", but their technology is supposed to be private. It's things they kept locked away behind code, or hid in their rooms or their pockets or their bags. It's a moving vault. Now, perhaps people have the right to access things you make public, such as on social media sites, but your phone is yours. Besides, it takes 15 minutes you get a warrant, and you CAN TAKE the phone, you've just gotta wait to look at it. :\
ReplyDeleteThis is totally an issue that pertains to our generation. Although I don't think that i will be arrested at any point in my life, this does mean that a lot of bad criminals will not be caught on any major offenses, but minor offenses. I believe that when a police officer has reason to arrest you, you are stripped of your privacy rights. Although this is not the way things work, I wish they would work this way. If a police officer decides to look through your cell phone, he must have a damn good reason.
ReplyDeleteIt understand why it can be hard for people to see what amendment protects you because its the constitution was made in the 1800's and now we have new ways and technology. I think police need warrants to search cars, phones and houses because thats personal stuff and if you aren't guilty they know a lot about your life. But then again they did catch that guy Riley that was in a gang and they didn't have time to go get a warrant because they saw the guns when they pulled him over and if they went to go get a warrant he could have ran and hid. This is a lot like the Patriot Act, invading personal space and accusing with no good evidence.
ReplyDeleteI feel like it shouldn't even be question that a person's phone is protected by the 4th amendment. A phone is more than something used to call people with now. A phone is pretty much a reflection of a person's life and it's somebody's personal belongings they can't just take and go through your phone the same why they can't just enter your house and start going through all of the things inside.
ReplyDeleteI see how this connects to what we're learning, the fourth amendment specifically. However I don't think the founding fathers had future technology in mind when designing guidelines. Technology is only making life easier and easier. Now I don't think the same standard should be held today. Considering, this man attempted murder, I think we should think long and hard on whether we should hold true to the bill of rights written long ago, or change alongside our environment and punish accordingly.
ReplyDeleteIt honestly doesn't surprise me that a legal technicality like this would overrule Riley's conviction. Of course it makes me feel angry and frustrated as it turned out that he was involved in a gang, but the Fourth Amendment did protect his right to privacy. I think when it comes to your privacy, it certainly comes with a cost. Remember SOPA, the whole censor the internet? We need to realize how the government will take any opportunity to be a watchdog over the American people. Letting Riley get away based on the fault of the police to have a search warrant is a victory for petitioners of privacy, but there are so many shades of grey. Crucial evidence from a computer that could have been used by the prosecution to convict Casey Anthony was never accessed until after she walked free. Objectively, Riley had the right of privacy. I just still question how technicalities like that can work for a society's safety.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Supreme Court's decision because the police officers searching through Riley's phone did violate his 4th amendment right. I'm not saying that it's a good thing that Riley got away with participating in the shooting, what I'm saying is that even in situations like this; people's rights should be respected and honored or else they could be turned into a farce that can be infringed at will.
ReplyDeleteTechnology has the effect of making life both easier and more complicated. I believe that electronic devices should be included in the fourth amendment but with a few conditions. If the situation were dire like a possible terrorist attack or other like situations a warrantless search should be allowed. Police should be able to seize a suspected criminals electronics but have a warrant to search it. Although this may limit our rights to privacy, just like the Patriot Act, the act is for the nation's safety.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad the supreme court ruled that you have to obtain a warrant to search through someones phone. It is a win for people that want privacy and don't want a bunch of police or government looking through their phone when there is most likely nothing there. I think holding the phone until they obtain a search warrant is also a good idea. If you give it back to the person who was accused or guilty before they could go through it then they could delete some information that would be valuable to law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteIssues of privacy indeed seem to be coming under fire lately, especially considering how readily available sensitive information is with modern technology. I believe it is the right thing for a warrant to be issued before someone's personal electronic devices can be searched, but an issue I see arising is when the device itself is being searched. Exactly how much can they search say your phone? Does a search warrant mean they can go through everything on your phone if they suspect there's pertinent information? The 5th Amendment says that a warrant must contain the place that is being searched and what exactly is being searched for. It's a bit more difficult to go through someone's entire computer to find a single file and not inadvertently or, as some would fear, purposely view anything sensitive, especially now that things like online banking are becoming the norm. It's also interesting to imagine how this plays against the Patriot Act. If Investigators can get a warrant to obtain business records, does that include your phone? Would anything not pertinent to the case but still incriminating be admissible as evidence or the basis of a separate case?
ReplyDeleteI believe it would be wrong for a police officer to go through someone's phone without consent of the owner or the courts. The only way this would be acceptable, according to the 4th amendment, is if the police officer had a probable cause to go through the cell phone. But what would give the officer the cause to do that? Say you get pulled over by a cop, and as he is approaching your window he sees a bottle of alcohol in your backseat. Right then and there he would have a probable cause to search the rest of your car to see if there is anything else. But, only your car. I don't believe finding that bottle of alcohol would be a probable cause to go through my phone. Just an example.
ReplyDeleteTechnology now has made life for teens easier but at the same time harder. We have become more dependent on technology for help with homework and searching things and having it all at our finger tips. But at the same time when we use it, we think everything is secured and private when we have passcodes and everything on our phones or passwords and everything but really it's not and our privacy is being invaded by all companies that can look up our information on the website and all of that. So privacy really isn't privacy anymore. And even though many may say that the police men were invading David Riley's privacy, they really weren't. It was right in my opinion to actually look through his stuff and actually find all that information and catch him and put him in jail even though they didn't have his permission. Because if they didn't do that then he would still have been out killing people and getting away with it. So there fore it was ok for the police men to do that even though it shocks me how technology is worked now a day and what ever you send someone else is reading or seeing it out there somewhere in the world.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading this article it falls into the invasion of privacy that is becoming less and lesser as technology progresses, carrying loads of information in a single hand held device, etc. I think it's appropriate to have warrant for looking into personal electronic devices before it is searched. In the 4th amendment a warrant must be issued on where it's used at and what's being searched for, if within those finds that another issue is discovered it can be used against one person, to protect their privacy. Sadly when it comes to technology, the information that you did within the past few months to a few seconds can be find within a single click.
ReplyDeleteim glad to see that the courts understand that even in a digital word some things are still part of our privacy and that cell phones have so much personal, sentimental value that they need to be protected under the 4th amendment.
ReplyDeleteGoing into someones phone is blatantly against the 4th amendment.
ReplyDeleteIt's completely understandable that the justices would rule to have a warrant to look through electronic devices, as it is a privacy right we have (4th amendment). I would like to think that they would put themselves into the situation of Riley and believe they have a right to privacy in this situation. Also, {Sonja Sotomayor is amazing!!!!} The way that this article relates to class is that (A) It relates to the constitutionality issues; and (B) It also relates to the 4th and 1st amendments that we were given way back in the olden days.
ReplyDeleteDoes government have a right to privacy as well? Or do government workers (like Snowden) have a freedom of speech? What came first, the chicken or the egg?
ReplyDeleteIn this modern era, the Supreme Court's main task is interpreting how the antique laws drafted by the framers of the constitution translate to modern era. In the time when the constitution was ratified, the idea was that no military or police could come into a citizen's home without their permission or the permission of the courts. Then, the home was considered a person's own private property where they could live their life without prosecution from the government. This is the same way for modern Americans and their private personal devices.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of privacy is a constant reminder of how no citizen is really safe and granted privacy from the government. Because technology is constantly being tracked nowadays, it is very easy for police make arrests and investigate the persons of said suspicious activity. However, what the police are forgetting are the constitutional rights that these individuals have, and police may not search a person's phone without a warrant. Such incidents like these are going to be very common in today's world, and will surely need to be addressed as a whole, fairly soon.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, it is obvious that there are many different ways to interpret the Constitution. For example, the rights of the people established by the Fourth Amendment have to be molded to fit modern times. This is difficult because the privacy of the people and the rights of the government (and police) often clash, with obvious pros and cons on both sides. This makes it difficult to make a decision that is constitutional and satisfies both sides.
ReplyDeleteJust like the 4th Amendment says, no unreasonable searches and seizures. A police needs to have a warrant to search a home, that shows that he has a reason to do so. So if you are pulled over for speeding and he wants to search your car and phone, he would need a warrant for that as well. He needs to prove he has a reason and that he isn't just doing it just because.
ReplyDeleteCell phone privacy is definitely a big issue that needs major attention. since a cell phone is part of someone's personal property, it is still an item that should need a warrant to search otherwise it goes against the amendment for the right to our privacy. Even though there is so much data and information stored on our electronic devices, it is our right as people to keep it hidden until there is a valid reason and permission to search them.
ReplyDeleteIs a constitution that was ratified over 200 hundred years ago able to adapt to the present problems in our technologically dependent society?
ReplyDeleteIt is very easily understood that the Supreme Court and Congress are having severe problems when trying to connect the ancient Amendments with modern day technology. For one, the fact that cell phones hold a million more purposes than just calling people can help or destroy the public's privacy rights. It is critical to comprehend that a cell phone may often be viewed as a weapon or GPS when under arrest. iPhones and androids hold more power than the are aware of, and this lack of knowledge by the public can seriously turn them in the wrong direction. In several ways this use of technology is great because it helps the 'good guys' hunt down the 'bad guys' but at the same time any person under arrest will throw out their plea for privacy when in need of an escape.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Bibeau
The article brings up interesting controversies that have come up in the last few years due to the increase of technology. I agree in the fact that police should have a warrant to search your phone because that little device holds many secrets and facts that people would like to keep private. I also agree with the author in the fact that a case with the focal point being of technology and privacy rights will soon arrive at the Supreme Court. The Constitution is a flexible article that can be interpreted in many different ways, including a case like phone privacy rights. People need to start understanding that anything that they have on their phone or any place that they take their phone can be seen by the government or even a simple hacker. Over time, we should see hard decisions made surrounding this topic.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this article, i thought about the constitution and the bill of rights, how might the other laws from the constitution need to change due to rising technological advancements. I also thought that, in my own opinion, i agree that it is a major privacy issue for somebody to go through your phone. In the article it states that the fourth amendment or "unreasonable searches and seizure" was an issue and i agree with that. If the police want to go through a persons phone, in my own opinion, it is the same as if they were to ask to search your home or other personal belongings, the person should have the right to say no and to request that the police have a warrant first.
ReplyDeleteJust like the police need a warrant or consent from the person to search their home, it makes sense that the same goes for going through a person's technology. It is a part of that person's property and I agree that it does violate the 4th amendment to search without consent or a warrant. Even though the evidence that the police officers had on the Riley case, it still was violating his 4th Amendment to search and seize without permission.
ReplyDeleteThe question of cellphones and how they relate to the Fourth Amendment completely revolves around the ability of the Constitution to be flexible. The founders couldn't even imagine the world that we live in today. Keeping the Constitution brief and leaving it intentionally somewhat ambiguous allows the Constitution to adapt as technology advances. Having the checks and balance system allows the for its development, but not so fast that the values are uprooted. The founders designed the Constitution to be a "living document" that would be able to last for centuries.
ReplyDeleteReading this article and comparing it to in class discussions, we have been talking a lot about what our rights are as American citizens and the privacy that we have with technology. Which we have no privacy with technology, everything can be found even years ago. Technology is used everyday and it can link us to crimes but we do have a right if they find something on our technology without having a warrant they can't use it on us in the court of law.
ReplyDeleteOlivia Herting
I think that the courts made the right decision in the court case, making police obtain a warrant to search someone's personal belongings. The 4th amendment protects an individual's privacy, so it is only right that the police must have a warrant, otherwise they could unlawfully search someone's phone with personal information who is innocent, so this court ruling is a huge step for people to have more personal freedom, which has seemed to be receding, especially with recent terrorist threats.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statement in the article that privacy comes at a cost. Cell phones hold a lot of information about people's lives therefore they can be used as good tools by law enforcement. However, this data can be wrongfully used violating our fourth amendment rights. As technology advances and becomes more complicated this is only going to be more of an issue. We already do so much with technology as a whole but when it comes to the future, i foresee us doing more in the future. This opens a whole new problem with conflicting views. The future is about convenience. But that can be good or bad.
ReplyDeleteThis article greatly relates to what we have been talking about in class. One of the general rights that we have been focusing on is the freedom or right to privacy. Technology has gotten extremely advanced and because of it, everything citizens do can be tracked for accusation. IIt was wrong for the police to arrest RIley for what he has on his phone because the police looked through it without a warrant. I believe it was right for the Supreme Court to rule that the police must have a warrant before they search any of the electronic devices people on. This allows more rights for the citizens.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, I think it is very reasonable that there needs to be a warrant before having your home or cell phone searched. I like that I have the right to say no. Because in that sort of situation where i'm asked if they can search my home or anything, damn right i'm going to say no.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article it is clear that the advent of technology raises many questions relating to our Constitutional rights. The courts are right to decide in favor of the individual in both cases, however the question must be asked whether it is right to abide so exactly to a law made 200 years ago. Obviously, the writers of the Constitution had no idea that cell phones would become a reality. They probably did't even imagine that something like cell phones were possible. Still, the right to privacy is key part of who we are as Americans. In most cases, I would think that it is the right thing to get a warrant before an officer investigates someone's phone.
ReplyDeleteTechnology now both made life easier and harder for teens and also adults in general. Our generation has become extremely dependent on technology not just for our school work but also for our leisure. We put almost everything that we have into our phones and computers and once someone has looked through them without our consent then it becomes an issue since they have invaded our privacy and breaks our rights.
ReplyDeleteThis issue falls under the "Living constitution" idea; making a ruling on rights based off of 18th century ideals in our very advanced 21st century. Our courts as wells as congressmen and women are presented with the tough challenge of interpreting laws and rights, and relating them to the growing social issues of today. I feel that these rulings did the citizens justice, protecting their rights under the 4th amendment. This is a growing controversial topic, but I feel we need to stick to the ideals presented by our founding fathers, and protect the citizens rights under the constitution.
ReplyDeleteTo summarize how this article and how the constitution is linked to this article, the constitution is the nations set laws that everyone must follow and how much harder it is for the justice system to do their own job due to how technology has advanced over 200+ years.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, i have realized that the advancement of technology has made it more difficult to apply the fourth amendment. The same has been applied for your phone that a police officer must have a warrant to search your phone and you have the right to deny their search if they do not have a warrant.
ReplyDeleteso these articles have a lot in common with each other and what we have been talking about in class. For instance we have been talking about our rights to the government and police enforcement. Such as the right to give up your cell phone to a police officer without a warrant. You do not have to give up your cell phone nor do you have to let the police in to your house without a warrant.
ReplyDeleteThis is a test comment.
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent choice for an article.
ReplyDeleteWe've been going over our rights as American citizens, and this article touches upon the fourth one. It tells us that we don't have to consent to searches of our electronic devices. By doing so we give up our fourth amendment rights protecting our privacy.
ReplyDeleteI feel like people are going to be happy that their phone cannot be checked anymore. It is a huge step for American privacy. But, in the first case they had already checked his phone before the ruling and found the incriminating evidence. He still should have had to serve his time and not have gotten let go. It will be harder to catch criminals and people are in more danger also. I don't mind people watching my phone as long as they can catch criminals by watching their phone too. If you aren't doing anything illegal than you have the right to keep your privacy. I'm fine with this ruling only because it doesn't take very long to get a search warrant and there is an exception for emergencies.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it was bad that they searched his phone without his consent, or a warrant, but they still should have jailed him as you said. Having your rights infringed shouldn't mean you shouldn't serve for your crime.
DeleteThis article demonstrates how citizens have rights protected by the Constitution, protecting us from accusations and arrest. We've been discussing about the topic of our individual rights in class and this article shows someone being released because the evidence against him violated his privacy. He had the right to keep his phone out of the search, which is similar to our discussions of our right to avoid police officer's questions.
ReplyDeleteThe entire article is about our rights as citizens and more specifically our rights we have that are protected by the 4th amendment. We have been talking a lot about the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which includes these rights that they are referring to in this article. The whole concept of the last few days of class is knowing your rights and that is what this article is trying to inform its readers of.
ReplyDeleteMuch like what we have been talking about in class, this article addresses the limits of what government, specifically police, should be aloud to do. It brings into question what really are the rights of the people and how they are adapting as modern society develops. The idea of interpretation comes up in this article and in class because the the Constitution must be applied to a society that is incredibly different than the society that framed it.
ReplyDeleteThis week in class we've been focusing a lot on privacy rights and your individual rights as an American citizen. This whole article is an account of where the line of privacy needs to be drawn in this modern age of electronics and electronic data. In almost all of the cases mentioned in the article, as well as what we've discussed in class, the favor falls to the citizens (for the most part) and the courts are ruling that privacy is becoming more and more important for individuals. People are still, to this day, gaining more and more individual rights and are gaining more protection from new laws.
ReplyDeleteThis article brings up the main concept of how the constitution is related in todays the society.The reasons behind the constitution were to protect the colonists from the british in times of war. Its becoming more and more difficult for government officials to be able to succesfully relate the constitution to the conflicts we face today. The privacy right as well as all the other rights are important, however they tend to create rather large issues reguarding criminals. It seems that its becoming easier to get away with things because the constitution isnt put bluntly its however people want to interpret it and quite frankly people are going to interpret it in their own favor. I do agree though that police shouldnt be allowed to just go through your phone or any personal items without permission or strong reasoning.
ReplyDeleteThis issue in the article relates to the "Living Constitution" concept that we have been studying. The Constitution is constantly being edited and revised. As well as it relating to Constitutional interpretation, it also covers the issue of US citizens knowing their rights.
ReplyDeleteWe've been talking about Amendments and our rights as American citizens, and yesterday I learned that without a warrant, one doesn't need to give up their belongings, cell phones included, to the police. We have these rights because of the Fourth Amendment.If I hadn't been told that I have the right to refuse to give up my belongings, I definitely would have given it up.
ReplyDeleteHm. Interesting. Privacy? In the digital age? At this point, it barely exists. The fact that the supreme court is trying their best to give something like privacy back, which we've basically lost, is nice. Our right to privacy is slowly slipping away, especially since a lot of things have changed since 1787. The way things have changed make it harder for this right to be protected, but this is a nice step forward. P.S. I have another comment, but it's under my google name at the school. I clicked publish before you said, I apologize.
ReplyDeleteThis article connects with what we've been talking about in class this week because its trying to find explain the constitutionality of individual rights when it comes to the fourth amendment. Whether or not a police can just take a person's phone without permission or permission from court. Even though if they do they are technically invading on a persons freedom of privacy. Which connects to what we have been learning this week since we are talking about knowing our rights.
ReplyDeleteI just lost my comment
ReplyDeleteThat's too bad.
DeleteCompared to what we have been discussing in class, this goes along hand-in-hand. We sometimes forget that we have the rights that we do have and the right to privacy is one that is very dire to our freedom. The Fourth Amendment was created in mind of the world that the framers lived in, and they never imagined or could fathom the world we live in. With all the astonishing technological advances we have made, information is readily there for us and some of our most private information such as bank account detail to even Social Security. Even when it comes to illegal activity, we still have those rights of privacy, even if it is illegal. It's good to know that it is harder to get caught unless a warrant is given. #ItsNotIllegalUnlessYouGetCaught
ReplyDeleteThe article has a lot in common with what we've been talking about in class in that the constitution is still being looked back at and used in today's society. The supreme court is still trying to connect something that happened in the 1700's to today's issues. They want to use those core principles used in the constitution and relate them to 21st century issues. Especially the 1st and 4th amendments are majorly used in cell phone privacy cases and posting negative comments on the internet as free speech cases.
ReplyDeleteWell we've been talking about knowing your rights and knowing your rights are protected. In the cases mentioned, the 18-century amendments can still take place in this day of age and they still matter under their circumstances. I'm also still glad the courts never forgot about these old laws either.
ReplyDeleteA common issue society has been facing is whether or not it is constitutional for police to search private property, which includes not only our houses but also our cell phones, without a warrant. This issue can be traced back to the framers of the constitution. Although the Fourth Amendment was written in terms of private property and technology did not yet exist, cell phones are still a form of private property and police should be required to have a warrant. Private property goes beyond our houses and for the police to look through any of our private belongings violates our Fourth Amendment rights. This connects to what we have been learning about, knowing our individual rights.
ReplyDeleteThe huge connecting factor here is our basic rights under the constitution. Seeing that we all are either legal adults, or on the border of adulthood, we need to know what our rights are and not let ourselves be either manipulated or controled by the government. Along with this, technology is continuously changing and adapting and with this, so does are rights according to these new developments.
ReplyDeleteThe basis of my extensive comment was that I do not agree with the decision that was made although I understand why they did it and why it was considered unconstitutional. It connected to our class discussion because we have been talking about our rights as citizens and students
ReplyDeleteThis article connects with what we've been talking about in class this week regarding the Constitution and privacy rights for U.S. citizens. This article focuses on the main issue of technology used as evidence against someone for a crime, and explains that the police aren't allowed to use our information/data found on our phones as evidence, unless they have permission from the phone's owner, or a warrant from the judge. We have been learning a lot about privacy rights as U.S. citizens, and this article divulges further into the rights we have today as technology plays an even larger part in our lives.
ReplyDeleteOur constitution has gone through a number of amendments and revisions. While many of these are mere responses to governmental aspects that the original constitution just happened to be missing, a large portion of them are in response to our constant modernization. As technology advances, our foreign relations change and new ideas are popularized, it is our job to evolve as a population--evolve our laws, our ideas and our lifestyle--in response to these external changes. Now, the idea originally represented in the 4th Amendment of "no search or seizure" without a warrant can now be applied to our technology. But should it? While our phones aren't technically our "own land" they still hold the same amount or more private information than can be found in our houses. A 9-0 vote in favor is rare in the Supreme Court, especially with their older, more conservative demographic. Regardless, they all supported the idea that phone and other personal electronics cannot be searched or seized without a warrant.
ReplyDeleteDespite this ruling, the NSA continues to violate this right by using our GPS info, our web search histories and our webcams to gather information for the "safety" of our nation.
If our phones can't be physically seized, what makes this action okay?
This connects what we've been doing in class because we have been discussing our individual rights, and how you don't automatically have to do something because a cop is asking. As an American citizen, you have certain rights that cannot be taken away from you, which is the same with cell phones. Phones carry a lot of vital information, so there's no reason that you should have to surrender that data.
ReplyDeleteI agree that police should have a warrant to search your cell phone. Now a days people use their cell phones for everything. Their entire lives are in their cell phones, most people cant be without them. People store their credit card information, bank information, etc. In their cell phones. I think that searching someones cell phone is the same as searching their house, or their car. It might be even more of a big deal to search someones phone than to search thier house honestly. With the increasing technology its hard for the police to stay under the rules of the fourth amendment with the privacy rules.
ReplyDeleteWe have been talking about our rights a lot lately. This article specifically touches base on the fourth amendment. The common people have the right to say no when asked by police if they can have their personal belongings. Although, if you say yes you are letting go of your rights and allowing the police take advantage of that.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we as citizens should be entitled to privacy when it comes to our belongings. So police needing a warrant before searching our cell phones makes sense. I do believe that in some cases police should be able to search a persons phone without one it is an emergency and they believe that searching someone's phone will help. In class we've been talking about privacy rights and how much privacy we actually have so this article greatly relates to that.
ReplyDeleteSo, lately in class we have been discussing the constitution and our rights associated with it, more specifically the ones directly relating to the Bill of Rights. We have been looking at what rights we have at any given time, whether we are sitting at home, sitting at school, driving somewhere, or committing murder, and how if we are unaware if these rights we may be taken advantage of by the police and our government. In this article they bring up the idea that the constitution may now need to be adapted to modern day technologies in order to ensure our rights even today. This helps to expand on what we have been talking about in class and even further make us aware of our rights.
ReplyDelete#Groen'sSecondPeriodIsTheBest
We've been talking about our rights as American citizen and the importance of knowing them. This article relates to this week's discussion because it talks about the rights of privacy and what the police can and cannot do according to the Fourth amendment and we've been talking about these same types of things. The police cannot perform a "search & seizure" without a warrant,etc.
ReplyDeleteWe have been talking about understanding our personal rights in class recently. The court justices naturally want to abide by the constitution. However, as seen from the article, technology is still applied to the amendments. The advancement of technology has conflicted with our understanding of the amendments, but it's still being applied to what was created over 200 years ago.
ReplyDeleteThis article has to do a lot with what we've been talking about in class, it's very common. In class, we have discussed about our rights to the government and the police enforcement in our society. The police does not have the right to search your phone without a warrant, and this could be taken in many ways. We have the right to not give our cell phone to the police either. In the article, the man got out of his sentence due to his rights being used for him, even though he was apart of gang activity, and attempted murder. I believe we should have our rights, but people will find ways to take advantage of our rights. It's a tough situation for us, because of the technology we have now compared to the past.
ReplyDeleteThe government getting involved in peoples cell phones is just wrong, our cell phones are our personal cell phones for a reason... As the article says this invades on our rights and yes, it clearly does. The reason we have passwords is because we don't want people to see certain things or we don't want others to access our information. The government should have no right digging through your cell phone for criminal information, going to that extent shouldn't be necessary because they invade your personal privacy. We as people have things we can and can't do and that should go to the government as well and going through your phone should be something they can't do! Searching your phone is an unreasonable search in my opinion. #GoBlazers
ReplyDeleteThe article directly connects with what we've been discussing in class. We have been discussing our rights given to us by the government and how we should protect those rights when dealing with law enforcement etc. I think this example is also an example of the "living constitution" concept in which our rights can constantly be tested and altered with, helping deal with advancements in technology. Cellphones were never an issue in the 1800's which is why i think the 'living constitution' is great for present and future advancements in society. #gov2014
ReplyDeleteThese articles have a lot to do with what we're learning from these posts informing us about situations where they debate whether or not something should be part of your unspecified rights in the amendments,like whether cyber bullying is considered to be part of your amendment rights, from the freedom of speech. Just like whether its freedom of speech for students to talk badly about their teachers on socializing networks. Other stories sharing cases where people, like Riley's rights were violated by a police officer confiscating his phone without permission or a warrant. Though the cop found incriminating evidence, it all got thrown out because the officer didn't have a warrant and violated his 4 amendment right to privacy.
ReplyDeletethis clearly connects to our rights in the first amendment to assemble and to protest. these people clearly want our government and the rest of the world to do some sort of real actions to fight "climate change". I may not agree with the urgency they feel that we need to address any changes in our climate. i believe that if there are any changes in the climate, then they are the natural courses of our planet. I believe that there are MUCH more urgent issues that our government needs to focus on rather than blowing away MORE money unimportant things. But despite my opinion, these people have the right to protest and they are exercising that right very well. they want the government to install certain policies, and they are doing all they can to convince our government to move climate gange up on their political agenda
ReplyDeleteI think this could relate to the Marbury vs. Madison case. Through that case, the Supreme Court gained the power to determine the meaning of the Constitution. That power could relate to how they resolved the Riley vs. California case by referring back the Constitution, describing how the police violated the 4th amendment by violating Riley's privacy without a search warrant. This shows that the Constitution always rules when it comes to dealing with these sort of situations.
ReplyDeleteThis definitely connects with the Bill of Rights and our first and fourth amendment. We as human beings should be able to say what we would like and be able to have privacy and that is where those amendments come in. We have nature rights that we uphold and so we have a right to live, have liberties, and have our property. Our cellphones are property and even though they may have bad things on them like criminal activity, the fourth amendment says we can not be searched with reasonable conduct. The police officer violated the fourth amendment and even though he did find criminal activity it still is not right.
ReplyDeletethis connects to 4th amendment as they said on the article , we have privacy rights and cellphone is a personal property and it says on the 4th amendment that it is not rightful to do seizures and searches without warrants. The others also connects to freedom of speech like the social media thing, can you get punish for criticizing something online or cyberbullying which is not cool but I think the bill of rights shouldn't be abused like freedom of speech especially when you can hurt people's feelings and most of the time drive them to suicide and I think Riley shouldn't have been freed based on 4th amendment cause he was involved in a shooting.
ReplyDeleteThe ruling of Riley vs California was vital in the changing times of today. This is an example of a living constitution. As times change and technology advances, the constitution must change with them. Also, this article clearly relates to the fourth amendment, the right to privacy. It makes sense that a warrent is required for the search of phones because like our houses, phones contain vital personal information.
ReplyDeleteThis article is very relative to what we are learning in class now about how the constitution was created and how the anti-federalists procured the bill of rights in order for them to be happy. Now as we skip ahead a couple hundred years this rights are playing a bigger part then ever. Some people are questioning to what extent they should cover. For example searching someones cell phone without a warrant is unconstitutional but it still happens all the time. Sometimes the polices excuse was that it was for emergency purposes. So its all based of the courts opinion on whether it was or not. Some people are saying that these rights were meant for a hundred years ago and we didn't have sophisticated tools like a cell phone. Technology plays a big part in catching criminals in this time period, but i believe we should still have our rights.
ReplyDeleteIt's quite surprising that our government would even question whether or not cell phones and digital files should be protected under the 4th amendment. You can connect this to the Bill of Rights, and even though times have changed, we can still apply it to now. Our privacy should be protected. Now, I understand that a lot of information can be stolen, but the government should understand that the information without our phones, or laptops, or anything electronic, is very valuable. The issue of privacy can also be connected to the political agenda. It has become such an issue that law need to be made in regards to privacy on our phones. But I think that our phones deserve as much privacy as the physical files in our house.
ReplyDeleteThis directly connects with our fourth amendment due to the fact that the police officer searched and seized the man's phone without a judge's warrant. Like it the article said that the founding fathers wouldn't have expected smartphones so why treat them differently under privacy laws. Citizen's get certain rights and if the government or police can just search your smartphone whenever they please, that takes rights away from a person. Phones are considered someone's personal property so no one should be able to search and seize them without any kind of permission
ReplyDeleteIn class we have been talking about our amendments and the rights that we have. In this article the fourth amendment is being violated. Today we use our cellphones to store lots of personal information, since our phone is on our person everywhere we go it is easier for us to access the information that we need. We have the right to say no for the cops to search our electronical devices, they need a search warrant. The first amendment is also being violated. Students do have the right to talk bad about their teachers on facebook. Sure its not the best idea to post it for everyone to see it, but we have the right.
ReplyDeleteI think yes that Police should be able to check your phone, laptop, and whatever else you have, but only in a emergency. LIke what the article said about how the one officer saw loaded guns in the back and come to find out he is in a gang and did all that stuff and got sentenced to 15 years in prison. But on the other hand we do have our own rights to privacy. We have been talking a lot about privacy rights in class and how the police should get a warrant before because we have our own right to say no.
ReplyDeleteThis article has a huge connection with what we have been learning in class over the past few days, and that is the Bill of Rights. This post has a lot to do with the first amendment and our right to freedom of speech. It also has a big connection with the fourth amendment of no searches and seizures. The law can search whatever they want on ONLY if they have a search warrant for that specific thing they are searching, and or if they have an emergency reasoning. I view this as a bad thing or a good thing because if a police officer stops a suspected criminal and they ask to search his phone and he says no then he can go kill someone, or commit another crime. But it also could be a good thing because the police think they can do whatever they want because they are the police and we have the right to tell them no and I think thats important.
ReplyDeleteThe first connection I could make would be to the first amendment because we have our rights as individuals. We also have rights that involve the protection of our privacy that is included in the fourth amendment. Police officers cannot search a person with out their consent or a warrant that has affirmation or oath from a judge.
ReplyDeleteThis article definitely relates to what we have been learning in class. I feel that police officers should not be able to go through your phone because, that is your property. We have been discussing our rights and people today should start using those rights. I believe that there are more important issues that police officers need to be focusing on rather than a phone. They are violating the 4th amendment.#Privacy
ReplyDeleteThis an example of the power allowed the judiciary branch that they may determine the meaning of the constitution. While the legislative and executive branches have the ability to enact laws, the jjudiciary branch balances that power by being able to stretch the meanings applied, or even give the law a near 180 from its original intention.
ReplyDeleteThe entire article connects to the Bill of Rights and everything we've learned about it in class. Specifically with the first amendment and also with rights that aren't directly mentioned in the constitution. Like the article mentions, it's hard to decide what should and shouldn't be a law when we're in the twenty-first century and the constitution was written in the eighteenth century. I feel like as we get more and more advanced in technology, it's going to get more difficult to make laws based on our bill of rights. While I feel that cyberbullying is definitely wrong, telling somebody not to do it does contradict our right to freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteThis article connects everything we have been learning in this class so far pertaining to our rights as citizens as stated in the fourth amendment. The debatable topic is that whether cell phones and electronics should be confiscated and analyzed. My thoughts are no. Although the founding fathers were thinking about the British when creating the fourth amendment, does not mean that rule should change although society has itself.
ReplyDeleteThe Fourth Amendment protects our privacy, and that should include cellphones. Most of our lives are spent on our cell phones, and they hold a lot of private information. I think the Courts are doing what's right, they are just updating a basic principle in the Constitution for modern times. It is now a very quick process to get a warrant if police need one, and checking cell phones without one is not a priority. Like the Anti-Federalist thought, people's rights need to be protected.
ReplyDeletePersonally, in the Riley v Cali. case, the police going through his phone, even if it meant finding out that he was more than likely involved in gang related events, murders, etc, really broke his rights as a citizen. Even if searching something on the spot, and breaking the 4th amendment, allows the police to find very crucial evidence, it's not constitutionally right to do so. This article really tells you how important the supreme court takes the Constitutions basic rights in this day and age.
ReplyDeleteThe article points out and connects to what we have been learning about the first and fourth amendment. The cop did violate the 4th amendment to privacy and informing us more about situations and how its somewhat like loopholes through our rights. The debates between whether or not, for example, cyberbullying, should be apart of your amendment rights because of the first amendment.
ReplyDeleteThis article relays to what we are learning in class which is our first amendment which says that we have the freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition. It also talked about our fourth amendment which states that we have the right to privacy. So in this article the police take the guys phone and searches it without a search warrant or asking if he can look through it so the guy got set free because of a mistake
ReplyDeleteThis article connects to the 1st amendment which is the freedom of expression and it also connects to the 4th amendment which is the security of unreasonable searches and seizures. I agree that the police should not have the right to go through a person's personal property without a warrant. Going through someones personal things just because you feel something is suspicious is not right. We have every right to say no. Although I agree with the idea of the protection of search and seizure, it is argumentative to say that sometimes it can be a good thing because we could be helping someone bad off the streets.
ReplyDeleteThis can be related heavily to the Bill of Rights because the issues in this article relate to the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendment. Sometimes, it would talk about how cyber bullying would relate to freedom of speech, looking at someones phone is a violation of privacy without a warrant and since it's not in the constitution to use your phone against you. The 10th amendment comes into hand with the cyberbullying because states and schools made rules against harassing your teacher over the internet.
ReplyDeletePolice should be able to search without a warrant because searches and seizures only applied to things that simply aren't digital, because those types of things weren't even conceptualized back then.
ReplyDelete