Case Decision Jane Doe v. City of Intrusia
The police violated the rights of Jane Doe when they decided to draw blood samples from her body without her consent and without any pressing need to do it since she was not driving at the time of the arrest and was charged based on information related to where she had been before and not driving under influence. Additionally, the state violated her fourth amendment rights when they accessed location information from her phone without a search warrant and without a considerable urgency to obtain the information without obtaining judicial consent. This case presents several constitutional questions that must be answered to put the ruling in perspective.
Did the police violate the fourth amendment rights of Jane Doe in conducting a mobile phone information search on her phone? According to Riley v. California (2014), the court granted that the evidence submitted against Riley was obtained in violation of his fourth amendment rights against unreasonable searches. In the case of Jane Doe, police were merely looking for evidence that she was using alcohol when operating the machine. A mobile phone, at first sight, is not a pointer to drinking thus the state cannot argue a pressing need to search its contents. Furthermore, in Riley v. California, the court held that digital data cannot be used for harming an officer thus is not subject to an immediate review without a warrant. Thus the police violated the rights of Jane Doe in obtaining the evidence thus the evidence cannot be admitted. However, Justice Alito in Riley v. California rightfully points out the need to distinguish between when and what can police search following an arrest.
Furthermore, the question of manipulation of Jane Doe’s personal belongings comes into question in this case. Is there a “reasonable expectation of privacy” concerning digital information such as can be done with a smartphone? The officers obtained evidence from her cellphone without a warrant violating Jane Doe’s reasonable expectation of privacy in her phone as pointed out by the court in Bond v. United States (2000), in what Chief Justice Rehnquist described as an “exploratory manner” of conducting a general search that led to the discovery of drugs on Bond.
Finally, did the circumstances under which the blood samples from Jane Doe were obtained qualify as exigent circumstances, and do they outweigh her fourth amendment rights to privacy? In Missouri v. McNeely (2013), the supposition that the natural dissipation of alcohol content in blood was seen as a strong reason to obtain a blood test without a warrant as the states need to gain evidence quickly. However, the need to conduct the test was outweighed by the protection of the fourth amendment against bodily intrusions. The officers had already conducted a breather test on Jane Doe and the results had been sufficient to make the arrest and though the natural metabolization of alcohol could constitute destruction of evidence, police had already obtained fairly sufficient evidence to move forward with their case.
Works cited
Bond v. the United States.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1999/98-9349. Accessed 15 Jul. 2020
Riley v. California.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-132. Accessed 15 Jul. 2020.
Missouri v. McNeely.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-1425. Accessed 15 Jul. 2020.