In the case of City of Intrusia vs. Mr. Doe’s, the Fourth Amendment enforces the notion that every individual’s home is his own fortress, protected from unfair searches and seizures of possessions by the state. It shields against subjective arrests, and is the foundation of the law concerning search warrants, wiretaps, stop-and-frisk, and safety inspections, along with other kinds of surveillance, in addition to being vital to many other criminal law issues and to privacy law.
Text messages mainly reveal the most intimate of our thoughts and emotions to the ones who are projected to safeguard them from any publication. The fact that we now carry these devices within ourselves almost all the time they have become part of us. Presently they carry most of our private issues, they are, in fundamental nature, receptacles for our minds—exterior hard drives for our brains. Therefore, accessing them is nearly like tapping the personal thoughts and demanding information out, and that cannot be performed without then violating the Fourth Amendment protection against private space protection. Text messaging exists in the 21st Century cellular phones. By concentrating on the technological actualities of text messaging and the severe threat created by warrantless intrusions into the ever-present methods of communication, I hold that defendant Mr. Doe has a standing to dispute the warrantless intrusions of his text messages and I therefore suppress both the text messages and the evidence obtained from them as illegal search. It is foolish to challenge that the extent of privacy secured to the public by the Fourth Amendment is been wholly unaffected by the progress of technology (OLMSTEAD v. UNITED STATES, 1927).
I have noted that even the US Supreme Court has rejected to offer assistance to lower courts. It has struggled towards the lawful challenges raised by rising technology, mainly particularly in the area of mobile phones along with contents allowing our courts to decide upon the applicability of technology in the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the mobile phone evidences are therefore illegal because of the warrantless intrusion of Mr. Doe’s text messages including all of the searches and illegal content acquirement; consequently, this is in infringement of the Fourth Amendment. This Court admits that it is objectively rational for individuals to suppose the inside of the mobile text messages to stay private, particularly vis-à-vis rule enforcement. Mr. Doe has a right to privacy regarding his text message exchanges, whether police obtained incriminating information from his phone concerning the sales of methamphetamine this amounts to illegal privacy intrusion (BOND v. UNITED STATES, 1999).
I also find that a cell phone and a text message carry far more vital information than simply a phone digit. Text messaging is a means by which individuals can share information and converse their feelings, emotions, and ideas. Text messages and mobile phone communications are all encompassing that some individuals may take them to be indispensable means or necessary items for self expression and identification. Here, the text messages permitted Mr. Doe to communicate with other individuals regarding his private undertakings. Therefore, taking the real setting of a text message into consideration, it is apparent that it requires Fourth Amendment protection (KYLLO v. UNITED STATES, 2000).
exclusionary rule being among the ways the amendment is enforced, maintains
that evidence obtained by means of a Fourth Amendment infringement is usually
inadmissible within criminal trials. Evidence acquired because of an unlawful
search of Mr. Doe’s Phone contents is therefore inadmissible as except if it would
have been discovered through legal means.
BOND v. UNITED STATES., 1999. Bond v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved July 13, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_9349
KYLLO v. UNITED STATES., 2000. Kyllo v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved July 13, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_8508
OLMSTEAD v. UNITED STATES., 1927. Olmstead v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved July 13, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1927/1927_493
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more