Week 9 Assignment Constitutional limitations
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Laikipia University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
632
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by peterokhan45
Week 9 Assignment: Constitutional limitations
Mohammed Khan
Campbellsville University
October 22, 2023
The main question in Carpenter v. United States concerned whether the Fourth Amendment
demanded that law enforcement acquire without a warrant historical cell phone location data in a
case in point from an ordinary cell phone service provider since such activity was tantamount to
a search.
Timothy Carpenter being the petitioner, the government through the subpoena seized the cell site
information from the carrier without a warrant, and as a result he was convicted for the
committed offences. Carpenter asserted that this without a warrant to search violates the Fourth
amendment of the US constitution that forbids unlawful searches and seizure.
Carpenter won by a five-to-four vote delivered by the Supreme Court. The case was decided in a
five-to-four decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts authoring the majority opinion holding
that collection of cell phone location data by the US government is a search within the context of
the Fourth amendment. The Court held that such location data, which might offer a very detailed
picture of an individual’s whereabouts over time, requires Fourth Amendment safeguards (Ram,
2019).
However, the Court also agreed with the argument that people do assume having a reasonable
expectation in the privacy of their movement records which can be revealed through cell phone
location data. With this in mind, this data could be accessed by the government only if there
existed enough grounds for issuing the warrant. In this particular case, the Court distinguished it
from a 1979 decision where it was determined that an individual has no reasonable expectation
of privacy of information supplied voluntarily by them to a third party, like telephone numbers
dialed. Cell phone location data was distinguished by the Court in the context of being much
more encompassing, compared to the limited inference data considered in the context of Smith.
In this light, the Carpenter v. United States ruling may have important ramifications on
technological Fourth Amendment. This shows how critical constitution supports are to an age, in
which several people’s details are held by different service providers. This is the first instance
where law enforcers have been required to have a warrant prior searching information from such
sensitive location data protecting citizens privacy rights online.
Therefore, the Carpenter decision brought Fourth Amendment laws closer to modern times in
that it applied those laws on cellphone tracking as well. Accordingly, it was determined by the
Court that the data obtained without a warrant predicated upon probable cause constituted an
invasion of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure (Rotert,
2023).
The case was significant for several reasons:
1. Protecting Digital Privacy: The judgment emphasized on the importance of safeguarding
people’s digital privacy as technological advancement makes it possible to collect large amounts
of data. The holding served as a blueprint for taking into account privacy aspects inherent in
modern technology while construing the Fourth amendment.
2. Reevaluating Third-Party Doctrine: Carpenter opposed the conventional “third party dues”
doctrine, meaning that people don’t expect to keep private their information shared with a third
party. This is what the judicial ruling implied as the new technology and way of life continue to
emerge.
3. Balancing Law Enforcement and Privacy: In this regard, the decision was meant to strike a
balance between law enforcement’s interests in searching personal information as part of
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
investigations and individual privacy protection concerns as well. It mandated authorities to
secure a general warrant for such wide-ranging locational information.
Finally, the Carpenter v. United State case confirmed that the fourth amendment protects people’s
cellphone location data. The court held that such a warrantless collection of cell phone location
records amounts to a search governed by the fourth amendment with reference to a warrant with
probable cause. This is a major landmark of the continuing judicial debate on privacy in a digital
universe, and balancing police prerogatives with civil liberties for Internet users.
References
Ram, N. (2019). Genetic privacy after carpenter. Virginia Law Review, 105(7), 1357-1425.
Rotert, B. A. (2023). Was" Varsity Blues" Actually a Crime? The Supreme Court's Crusade
against the Federal Mail and Wire Fraud Statutes. BCL Rev., 64, 415.