A computer search happens when law enforcement looks into someone’s computer or electronic data to find evidence of a crime. This can involve browsing through files, reading emails, or checking browsing history. But the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches. Therefore, the police usually need a warrant to conduct a computer search.
Reading Time: 3 minutes
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
United States v. Jones (2012)
In this case, police attached a GPS device to Mr. Jones’ car without a valid warrant. They tracked his movements for a month, leading to drug trafficking charges. The legal issue was whether attaching the GPS device and tracking Mr. Jones’ movements without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court decided that this was a breach of Mr. Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights. The Court explained that attaching the GPS device to Mr. Jones’ car was a physical intrusion, or trespass, on his property for information gathering purposes. This amounted to a search under the Fourth Amendment (United States v. Jones, 2012).
Riley v. California (2014)
Police arrested Mr. Riley and searched his smartphone without a warrant. They found evidence linking him to a gang shooting. The legal issue was whether searching a smartphone during an arrest without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment.
The Supreme Court decided that it does violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that smartphones hold vast amounts of personal information. Searching them without a warrant intrudes too much into personal privacy. So, police need a warrant to search a smartphone, even during an arrest (Riley v. California, 2014).
Carpenter v. United States (2018)
In Carpenter, police obtained Mr. Carpenter’s cell phone records without a warrant. These records showed his movements over several months. The legal issue was whether collecting these records without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled that it did violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court explained that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their physical movements over time. Collecting long-term cell phone records interferes with this expectation (Carpenter v. United States, 2018).
Summary
In sum, procedural law sets rules for conducting legal proceedings, including computer searches. Three landmark cases, United States v. Jones, Riley v. California, and Carpenter v. United States, have shaped how the Fourth Amendment applies to computer searches and electronic data. These cases confirm that police usually need a warrant for these types of searches.
Modification History File Created: 08/08/2018 Last Modified: 07/17/2023
This work is licensed under an Open Educational Resource-Quality Master Source (OER-QMS) License.
You are welcome to print a copy of pages from this Open Educational Resource (OER) book for your personal use. Please note that mass distribution, commercial use, or the creation of altered versions of the content for distribution are strictly prohibited. This permission is intended to support your individual learning needs while maintaining the integrity of the material.
