As technology becomes more portable and easier to carry around, can other mobile devices be searched, such as pads, if they are on a person as well?

Dr. Hollington & Peers
There are many challenges that law enforcement agencies face while investigating cyber exploitations. Some of these can be while investigating the loss of data, loss of location, challenges with the national framework, obstacles to international cooperation, and the challenge of public and private sectors (Miralis, 2020). Another one of the many challenges is the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment safeguards the right to be secure in their houses, persons, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures (Hecht-Felella, 2022). With technology such as cell phones, laptops, and other mobile devices being able to contain evidence, court cases have found that the amount of evidence stored on a mobile device in some cases doesn’t need a search warrant. One example of this is the Riley V. California case, in which a suspect was arrested, and the phone was searched without a warrant; the court stated that since cellphones are now a part of daily life, and the amount of data stored on the cell phone was more than any one person would have on them in physical form (Hecht-Felella, 2022). With technology now being seen as a part of everyday life, will laptops be considered the same now? As technology becomes more portable and easier to carry around, can other mobile devices be searched, such as pads, if they are on a person as well?
A case that I found while doing this week’s reading and some additional research is the Florida v. Riley case. In this case, a man by the name of Michael Riley lived on a five-acre lot; his primary residence on this lot was a mobile home; the police were tipped off that Riley was growing marijuana on this property because the officer was not able to see if it was being raised from the land the officer took a helicopter to circle the property, and saw the marijuana being grown (Oyez,(n.d.)). A search warrant was then obtained, and Riley was arrested for possession after the property search; it was argued in this case that the officer violated Riley’s fourth amendment right, and Riley filed to have the evidence dismissed (Oyez, (n.d.)). The evidence was not rejected because it was argued that the police officer did not enter Riley’s land and that flying the helicopter was well within the law (Oyez, (n.d.)). With more and more technological changes, there needs to be a better answer to what is considered private, for example, whether a cellphone is to be considered private or not. As in the case of Riley V. California, the cell phone was searched without a warrant because it was deemed that a cell phone is a part of daily life.
Thank you
Anthony
References
Florida v. Riley. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved October 5, 2022, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-764
Hecht-Felella, L. (2022, October 5). The fourth amendment in the Digital age. Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved October 5, 2022, from https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/fourth-amendment-digital-age
Miralis, D. (2020, August 3). The 5 key challenges for law enforcement in fighting cybercrime. Lexology. Retrieved October 5, 2022, from https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=12513d17-cff3-4d8f-b7dc-cd91826f05d4

Leave a Comment