DB 3

docx

School

Liberty University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

540

Subject

Information Systems

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by steezlebot

Discussion Thread: Mobile Technology and Data at Rest MANAGE DISCUSSION This is a graded discussion: 75 points possible due Feb 8 After reading the Read: Bright-Line Rule for Warrantless Cell Phone Searches: Why It May Not Be the Brightest located in the Learn section, reply to the following prompt. Robinson ( Robinson v. United States , 414 U.S. 218 (1973)) established a “categorical” search incident to arrest rule: it applied to all arrests, regardless of the underlying factual circumstances. All of the pre- Gant litigation after Robinson concerned the scope of the permissible area searched: the body of the arrestee; the area around him; the vehicle in which he was arrested. Gant created a new rule for searches of motor vehicles incident to arrest and the two situations where a search are permitted is stated in the case: the police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest (A) only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or (B) when it is “reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.”  Can hard drives, which are typically used to store music to play on the vehicle's sound system, be searched?  What about vehicle “black boxes,” that is, event recorders, which register many of the operations of the vehicle, including speed, braking, and airbag deployment?  Or does Riley trump Gant , requiring a warrant? Please review the Discussion Assignment Instructions Download Discussion Assignment Instructions prior to posting. You may also click the three dots in the upper corner to Show Rubric. Post-First: This course utilizes the Post-First feature in all Discussions. This means you will only be able to read and interact with your classmates’ threads after you have submitted your thread in response to the provided prompt. Submit your thread by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday of Module 4: Week 4. United States citizens have the right to be secure in their homes, belongings, and personal information (Clancy, 2019). No one can search or seize them without a warrant, which can only be issued if there is probable cause, and it specifies the place to be searched and the items or people to be seized (Clancy, 2019; Constitution Annotated, 2022). The scope of warrantless searches has been heavily analyzed in court over the years, leading to significant transformations in the application and scope of such searches. The search incident to arrest rule authorizes a thorough search of the suspect's person and their belongings immediately following an arrest (Clancy, 2019). In cases where it is warranted by the need to protect the safety of the arresting officers and avoid destroying evidence, Chimel v. California mandates that a search related to an arrest be restricted to the area within the arrestee's immediate control (Clancy, 2019). Due to the nature of the search consequent to arrest, its precedent, and its applicability to the search for digital evidence, applying warrantless searches to contemporary electronic devices has sparked differing perspectives. Justice Alito concurred that a pre-digital era rule about incidents leading

to arrests should not be applied to mobile phone searches in the present day (Vo, 2015). Clancy (2019) claims that the incident-to-arrest doctrine may have broad applications due to the prevalence of portable digital devices carried on or around one's person in today's environment. He adds that the incident has been used to arrest in several situations, and this doctrine's rationale has been repeated numerous times (Clancy, 2019). The incident arrest was designed to protect the police officer searching and to prevent frustrated arrestees from destroying evidence and accessing weapons. In an arrest incident, the suspect's person and belongings are accessed along with an intrusion into their area (Clancy, 2019). As for digital evidence, Vo (2015) asserts that the Supreme Court precedent regarding unreasonable searches of modern technology has been challenging to implement, and lower courts are deeply divided on the issue. It is an absolute requirement to obtain a warrant before searching hard drives in a vehicle, as they are considered containers for storing a significant amount of data with a high storage capacity that demands privacy. The Supreme Court's decision in the Riley vs California case was based on the standards set by the Chimel vs California case. Riley’s cellphone search was conducted under these standards (Vo, 2015). The court rejected the argument that cell phones could pose a threat to officers and enable an arrestee to escape. The case established that warrantless search and seizure of a cellphone's digital contents is unconstitutional, making it a landmark case ( Riley v. California, 2014). When applied to a similar digital device such as a hard drive in a car, the gadget does not represent a threat to the safety of the officer and will not facilitate an arrestee's escape therefore the argument that created Riley's court ruling can be used (Vo, 2015). Hard drives, as previously mentioned, require a warrant to access; but, in some situations, such as where an officer has reasonable cause to believe that the hard drive contains information about the length and severity of an accident, the engine rpm, steering, and braking during the incident, a warrantless search of the hard drive may be justified. It is exceedingly difficult to access data on these devices and a special tool is needed, which is not available to most owners. The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants be described with particularity to avoid the general rummaging through a person’s belongings (Clancy, 2019). After being arrested for driving with a suspended license, Rodney Gant was handcuffed and locked in a patrol car ( Arizona v. Gant , 2009). In the back seat of his car, police found Gant's jacket and in the pocket of the jacket was cocaine. He argued that the evidence violated his Fourth Amendment rights and should be suppressed ( Arizona v. Gant , 2009). The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that any exceptions to the warrant requirement must be justified by legitimate concerns about officer safety or preservation of evidence. Under Gant vs Arizona standards, collecting evidence after a suspect is handcuffed and the crime scene is secured is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment ( Arizona v. Gant , 2009). Therefore, it is imperative that a warrant is obtained before any such evidence is collected ( Arizona v. Gant , 2009). In the State v. Worsham case, Worsham was accused of drunk driving and vehicular homicide. The police wanted to use data from a black box to prove Worsham's guilt without a warrant. The Florida court ruled that accessing data from a car's black box is a search that requires a warrant, and the evidence must be suppressed ( State v. Worsham , 2017). The majority argued that extracting and interpreting information from a car's black box is not like examining the car's brakes or tires. The court held that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the stored data, protected by the Fourth Amendment ( State v. Worsham , 2017). Electronic data recorders, which store more information than cell phones, document more than what is voluntarily conveyed to the public. The difficulty in extracting such information strengthens an expectation of privacy ( State v. Worsham , 2017).

The bright-line rule is a more effective option for smartphones and modern devices due to its straightforward application. This rule states that searches of cell phones without a warrant are against the law, as they go against the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures (Vo, 2015). However, given the significant increase in electronic devices and their storage capabilities, it may be necessary to revise the bright-line rule. Courts today rely on previous cases to determine the scope of searches for modern devices. In both cases, a warrant was required despite their different scopes. Gant's case involves a physical search of a vehicle and Riley's case involves a digital search of a smartphone. In Riley's case, police were able to secure the crime scene of the suspect, and the suspect's smartphone did not pose any threat to them nor was its data likely to be discarded. The crime scene was already secured, so a warrant was required for the additional search of Gant's vehicle. It was a violation of the Fourth Amendment in both cases to search without a warrant. Black boxes installed in vehicles, which are capable of recording or storing information about the vehicle's operations, as well as hard drives that can store music for playback in vehicles, must be searched only with a lawful warrant. When it comes to digital devices and computers, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and any searches that intrude on that expectation are unconstitutional. References Arizona v. Gant , 556 U.S. 332, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 173 L. Ed. 2d 485, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 781 (2009). https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/07-542 Clancy, Tomas K. (2019). Cyber crime and digital evidence (3 rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Carolina Academic Press. ISBN: 9781531009618. Constitution Annotated. (2022). U.S. Constitution - Fourth Amendment | resources | constitution annotated | congress.gov | library of congress . Constitution.congress.gov. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/ Riley v. California , 573 U.S. 373 (2014). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/373/ State v. Worsham , 227 So. 3d 602, 604 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017). https://casetext.com/case/state-v-worsham-12 Vo, Nancy. (2015). Bright-line rule for warrantless cell phone searches: why it may not be the brightest solution. Whittier Law Review, 36(3), 593-616.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

DB 3

Related Documents