Posted: September 1st, 2022

The Fourth Amendment and Digital Evidence

The Fourth Amendment and Digital Evidence
After you choose your particular topic, search the news and find an example in today’s society that illustrates the concept reflected in that aspect of the amendment.

Your paper should be structured as follows:

AMENDMENT—FULLY WRITTEN
PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE AMENDMENT (IF APPLICABLE)
ILLUSTRATIONS OF CONTROVERSY IN THE NEWS—FIND THREE OR FOUR ARTICLES
ANALYZE THE OPPOSING POINTS—EQUALLY
TAKE A SIDE AND MAKE A CASE FOR WHY YOU ARE CORRECT IN YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE AMENDMENT (OR CLAUSE OF THE AMENDMEN

Under the fourth amendment, the constitution protects individuals from any unreasonable seizure and searches by government officials (Clancy, 2015). However, this legislation doesn’t guarantee against all seizures and searches, but only the ones considered unreasonable according to the law. As such, a balance has to be struck between respecting an individual’s right to privacy, preventing unnecessary intrusion enshrined in the fourth amendment, and safeguarding legitimate government interests of enhancing public safety. With the advent of digital technology, it has raised several legal questions, particularly regarding the seizure and search of digital information and an individual’s right to privacy.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case, Carpenter v. the United States, ruled that law endorsements have to obtain search warrants to access cell tower records which can provide the virtual map and timeline of an individual’s whereabouts (Barnes, 2018). This ruling can be considered a groundbreaking victory for privacy rights in today’s digital age. Moreover, Barnes (2018) adds that the ruling offers a framework to safeguard sensitive digital information such as emails, smart home appliances, and other technologies that have still not been invented.
However, critics of this ruling may suggest that it threatens digital technology to be a useful tool in developing their investigations by law enforcement. Ordinarily, Cell site information is often gathered earlier during an investigative process (Barnes, 2018). In other words, it a building block to the establishment of the likely cause of a given case, and it supports obtaining the excellent evidence that will lead to charges. According to (Friedland, 2013), science provides law enforcement with a powerful tool for undertaking its essential responsibilities. Although digital technology provides law enforcement with a very innovative investigation tool, it risks violating the fourth amendment. The constitutional protection against any unlawful seizures and searches as enshrined within the fourth amendment should be applied to this evolving technology.
According to EM LYON (2019), The Stored Communications Act stipulates that a prosecutor has to seek a court order before tracking data such as cellphone related information. Additionally, the prosecutor should also demonstrate that articulable and specific facts exist to show that reasonable grounds suggest that the material being searched or seized is relevant to an ongoing investigation (Clancy, 2015). In other words, under such circumstances, the fourth amendment risk being violated, and a probable cause will have to exist or a reasonable belief to demonstrate that the evidence can result in confirmation of charges. This idea is supported in the United States v. Jones (2012) case, where a GPS device was attached to a suspect’s vehicle to monitor his movements. This device’s application had been authorized through a search warrant for just ten days, but this surveillance lasted for more than 28 days, which was considered excessive. As such, the court established that under such circumstances, the Fourth Amendment had been violated (Clancy, 2015). Similarly, EM LYON (2019) adds that in the case of Riley v. California (2014), the court ruled that a search warrant is necessary for law enforcement to access data from a suspect’s cell phone after an arrest.
In conclusion, the constitutional protection against any unlawful seizures and searches as enshrined within the fourth amendment should be applied when collecting digital evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case, Carpenter v. the United States, offers a framework to safeguard sensitive digital information such as emails, smart home appliances, and other technologies that have still not been invented. Moreover, the prosecutor should also demonstrate that articulable and specific facts exist to show that reasonable grounds suggest that the material being searched or seized is relevant to an ongoing investigation. Failure to follow these legal requirements when collecting digital evidence would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

References
Barnes, R. (2018, June 22). Supreme Court rules that warrant is needed to access cell tower records. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-that-warrant-is-needed-to-access-cell-tower-records/2018/06/22/4f85a804-761e-11e8-805c-4b67019fcfe4_story.html
Clancy, T. K. (2015). Fourth Amendment satisfaction — The ‘Reasonableness’ of digital searches. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2613627
EM LYON, F. T. (2019, January 15). The legal implications of digital privacy. Retrieved from https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/The-Legal-Implications-of-Digital-Privacy.html
Friedland, S. (2013). Cell phone searches in a digital world: Blurred lines, new realities and Fourth Amendment pluralism. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2341031

Order | Check Discount

Tags: The Fourth Amendment and Digital Evidence