The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment requires a government to have search warrants to reveal people from unreasonable seizures and searches. The majority in the Supreme Court established that the government violated the Fourth Amendment in Carpenter’s case. This essay looks further into the technical and legal foundation of the case.

Under the Fourth Amendment, people, their papers, houses, and effects are free from unreasonable seizures and searches when a government entity lacks a search warrant. It also applies to intrusion on individuals’ privacy and physical location. The location of a cellphone gets known from CSLI and GPS. Consequently, warrantless seizure and searches of cellphone records are violations of the Fourth Amendment.

The court got split into 5–4when issuing its decision in June 2018. Four Associate Justices had the same opinion as Chief Justice Roberts. Consequently, Robert authored the majority opinion, which had it that the government violated the Fourth Amendment. They broke this part of the Bill of rights by lacking a search warrant while having access to records that documented the cellphone’s locations. The opinion is agreeable because the data used to track the phones is as good as a GPS tracking device. Furthermore, the third-party doctrine is inapplicable here.

The third-party doctrine allows the government of the United States to acquire information without obliging to the Fourth Amendment. The third parties are ISPs, banks, e-mail servers, and phone companies. As much as the government is not to eavesdrop calls, obtaining a dialed phone number does not require a warrant. Likewise, the government could get information that facilitates communication between two points, such as the details of a letter or package. However, it needs a search warrant to open it.

The Stored Communications Act safeguards the personal detail stored by specific service providers. They are to withhold any information unless the government agency has a warrant. Notably, judges give out a court order for disclosure if the federal government proves that the information requested helps with a criminal investigation. The Sixth Circuit reheard the case in June 2019 and gave 116 years prison sentence. The court believed that the FBI had good intentions in getting the data.

In this age of smartphone technology, third parties have lots of details of individuals. Sharing them is unacceptable because it is digital privacy. On the other hand, the Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, which forbids seizures and searches. It goes on to set conditions for warrants issuing. Probable causes must justify their issuance as well. It also reports the actions to take upon its violation.

Carpenter got tried at the U.S. District Court of Michigan for the Eastern District. The appellate court was the Sixth Circuit. It affirmed the conviction and sentence of Carpenter. It argued that the cell-cite data are not communication content. The majority argued further that collecting the records was not a search, hence did not need a warrant.

One arrested robber confessed and gave the FBI his phone to evaluate the calls made during robberies. A magistrate judge then gave the FBI the green light to get transactional records. The cell-site records determined that Carpenter was less than two miles away in four robberies, so he got charged and arrested.

Instead of the local law enforcers, the FBI arrested Carpenter because robbery affected commerce between interstates. He also had a firearm and participated in violent crime. The decision is justifiable because the FBI has the protection of civil rights among its top priorities. By brandishing their guns, they used violence as coercion to rob the stores.

In conclusion, acquiring data that reveals location requires warrants. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment got violated in charging and arresting Carpenter. Notably, the third party doctrine allows the government to acquire some information without considering the Fourth Amendment. However, the Stored Communication Acts makes service providers hold specific information from government agencies unless they have a warrant. Finally, Carpenter serves 116 years prison sentence as from June 2019 after rehearing.