Should Law Enforcement Be Required To Have Warrants Essay
To this day, devices such as, smartphones, smart tvs, tablets and smart-cars are evolving making people's personal lives more susceptible to having personal information that is stored to go wide and easy to gain. This has become easier due to the access we that to the internet and the fact that more and more quantities of devices are beginning to require internet. This brings the issue up for law enforcement agencies to question whether the law enforcements should or should not be required for devices to have warrants. Individuals believe that they should not be required to have a warrant to search people’s privacy and information because people tend to put their information out in the open for others to observe and gives away their direct
…show more content…
location. Others believe they should have a warrant for the simple fact of just privacy and to prevent personal information being tracked and watched in the wrong hands of officers.
In June 25,2014, the Supreme court justice ruled 9-0 that police should not have the right to search anyone’s cell phone in an arrest unless there is probable cause. In an article by CNN the supreme court suggests, “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought (Bill Mears para. 5).” From this article, it gives a bit of an idea of what the supreme court felt even with the creation and evolution of technology and that was they felt as if no matter how easy it is to access that individual’s data. They still deserve a right to have their information protected always. Unless, of course, an officer has probable cause and that in the CNN article is defined by the supreme court when possible only if, “to ensure officers' safety and prevent destruction of evidence.” (Bill Mears Para. 5). This relates back to the topic because this law is very relieving for individuals because their privacy will be safe. While others may fear that, the wrong people will get away because of it.
The idea of giving officers the power to search individual’s phones without a warrant can be a very affirmative action for the country because if we give officers the right to seize data of other individuals it denies the opportunity for criminals to commit crimes and put them in jail before the crime that the criminals can potentially commit that may be a big deal can be halted in time.
In the legal information institute website, they bring up one case in Wurie vs the United states in which Brima Wurie was arrested of having 2 packs of cocaine. Officers found the phone and due to his locations of where he had called from and his accounts they traced the address of the suspect back to the home in which they found many more drugs and ammunition. Later, Wurie was convicted of those charges. However, later appealed on the grounds of the 4th amendment saying that the police didn’t have probable cause to search through Wurie’s phone. In the article, it also mentions, “The Court of Appeals noted that information stored on cellular phones is of a kind otherwise off-limits to police searches incident to an arrest.” (Rosales Para. 8). This shows that the court felt that the officer had no reason to go through the phone of the suspect because there wasn’t any need to search for it due to the reason of
arrest.
In conclusion of the case, Wurie won because the officers had no reason to search the phone in the first place even though it did trace back to many more drugs and guns. From this case, we see how this shows that a man is in possession of numerous dangerous items and that he has the right to hold on to all of that because of the police invading his phone which eliminated all the evidence and has the right to hold onto all his items even though the items police found under his home is illegal and on top of that the police could almost easily find where he had lived at because of the accounts and calls he had. Therefore, police need to be given more power because they are finding all the right things that can keep drugs and violence out the street and cell phone seizure would be a major breakthrough for them.
Giving cops the right to search someone phone without a warrant is a very problematic issue because giving cops that much power can allow them to abuse their power in the wrong ways and gives them freedom to follow anybody for a substantial period. Additionally, law enforcements, now, do not need a warrant to learn personal information about an individual even though there must be a warrant because as previously stated, of probable cause. As stated by Sara Berman in the NOLO article, “police officers must be able to point to objective circumstances leading them to believe that a suspect committed a crime.” (Berman para 1) This can be problematic because of how police officers can use many ways to use probable cause as an excuse. This thus, whether right or wrong can lead to officers gaining information about anyone that doesn’t want to be obtained by others and that bit of information can be used wrongfully against an individual and no matter how easy it is to obtain that person's information it's still not something that should be brought to light.
Thus, there will always be the ethical dilemma of whether a cop should need to have a warrant. Cops could either abuse the power to gain information or stop crimes. As more electronics become available to people the more that it's going to be an ongoing issue in society. Which is something that needs to be sought out and planned accordingly to situations and properly thought out so that the best scenario is created for both law enforcements and citizens.
location. Others believe they should have a warrant for the simple fact of just privacy and to prevent personal information being tracked and watched in the wrong hands of officers.
In June 25,2014, the Supreme court justice ruled 9-0 that police should not have the right to search anyone’s cell phone in an arrest unless there is probable cause. In an article by CNN the supreme court suggests, “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought (Bill Mears para. 5).” From this article, it gives a bit of an idea of what the supreme court felt even with the creation and evolution of technology and that was they felt as if no matter how easy it is to access that individual’s data. They still deserve a right to have their information protected always. Unless, of course, an officer has probable cause and that in the CNN article is defined by the supreme court when possible only if, “to ensure officers' safety and prevent destruction of evidence.” (Bill Mears Para. 5). This relates back to the topic because this law is very relieving for individuals because their privacy will be safe. While others may fear that, the wrong people will get away because of it.
The idea of giving officers the power to search individual’s phones without a warrant can be a very affirmative action for the country because if we give officers the right to seize data of other individuals it denies the opportunity for criminals to commit crimes and put them in jail before the crime that the criminals can potentially commit that may be a big deal can be halted in time.
In the legal information institute website, they bring up one case in Wurie vs the United states in which Brima Wurie was arrested of having 2 packs of cocaine. Officers found the phone and due to his locations of where he had called from and his accounts they traced the address of the suspect back to the home in which they found many more drugs and ammunition. Later, Wurie was convicted of those charges. However, later appealed on the grounds of the 4th amendment saying that the police didn’t have probable cause to search through Wurie’s phone. In the article, it also mentions, “The Court of Appeals noted that information stored on cellular phones is of a kind otherwise off-limits to police searches incident to an arrest.” (Rosales Para. 8). This shows that the court felt that the officer had no reason to go through the phone of the suspect because there wasn’t any need to search for it due to the reason of
arrest.
In conclusion of the case, Wurie won because the officers had no reason to search the phone in the first place even though it did trace back to many more drugs and guns. From this case, we see how this shows that a man is in possession of numerous dangerous items and that he has the right to hold on to all of that because of the police invading his phone which eliminated all the evidence and has the right to hold onto all his items even though the items police found under his home is illegal and on top of that the police could almost easily find where he had lived at because of the accounts and calls he had. Therefore, police need to be given more power because they are finding all the right things that can keep drugs and violence out the street and cell phone seizure would be a major breakthrough for them.
Giving cops the right to search someone phone without a warrant is a very problematic issue because giving cops that much power can allow them to abuse their power in the wrong ways and gives them freedom to follow anybody for a substantial period. Additionally, law enforcements, now, do not need a warrant to learn personal information about an individual even though there must be a warrant because as previously stated, of probable cause. As stated by Sara Berman in the NOLO article, “police officers must be able to point to objective circumstances leading them to believe that a suspect committed a crime.” (Berman para 1) This can be problematic because of how police officers can use many ways to use probable cause as an excuse. This thus, whether right or wrong can lead to officers gaining information about anyone that doesn’t want to be obtained by others and that bit of information can be used wrongfully against an individual and no matter how easy it is to obtain that person's information it's still not something that should be brought to light.
Thus, there will always be the ethical dilemma of whether a cop should need to have a warrant. Cops could either abuse the power to gain information or stop crimes. As more electronics become available to people the more that it's going to be an ongoing issue in society. Which is something that needs to be sought out and planned accordingly to situations and properly thought out so that the best scenario is created for both law enforcements and citizens.