BrandonMThomas - Intro to Law - Unit 8 Assignment Course Project Part III
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Post University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
101
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by MinisterGiraffePerson1066
Unit 8 Assignment: Course Project, Part III
Brandon M. Thomas
Paralegal Studies, Post University
Introduction to Law
Professor David C. Smith, Esq.
12/16/2023
1.)
In the case of Carpenter v. United States
, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court held that the government’s acquisition of historical cell phone location records without a warrant violated an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The decision recognized that technological advancements, like cell phone tracking, could infringe on privacy rights, and thus, a warrant was required for such searches to be constitutionally valid. Id.
2.)
In Carpenter v. United States
, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), the Court reached its decision through a 5-4 majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. The majority held that obtaining historical cell phone location data constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. The Court departed from the traditional third-party doctrine, which held that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily shared with third parties.
Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the sensitivity and comprehensive nature of cell phone location data, asserting that it provides a detailed and intimate portrayal of an individual’s private life. The Court balanced law enforcement interests with privacy concerns, concluding that obtaining such data without a warrant based on probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Id.
3.)
In Carpenter v. United States
, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), the Court relied on the precedent set in United States v. Jones (2012). In Jones, the Court held that attaching a GPS device to a suspect’s vehicle and monitoring its movements constituted a search under
the Fourth Amendment. The majority opinion in Carpenter drew parallels between the
GPS tracking in Jones and the collection of historical cell phone location data, emphasizing the need for a warrant to safeguard an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the digital age. Id.
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
Citations
Carpenter v. United States
, 585 U.S. ___ (2018). (n.d.).
Supreme Court of the United
States
. Retrieved December 15, 2023, from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
United States v. Jones
, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved December 15, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-1259