Baseline Argument Essay

    The Supreme Court recently made a decision as to whether or not police are required to have a warrant to search a person’s cellphone. They decided in a 9-0 ruling in favor  of privacy advocates and stated that police searching through a person’s cellphone without his or her permission, or a warrant, is against citizen's constitutional rights. It is, and officers should have to obtain permission from a judge, or the owner of the device, before searching it. This and other questions relating to privacy on the Internet have been discussed many times since the invention of these devices.

Eventually a case was brought to the Supreme Court, concerning David Riley, who was pulled over for an expired car registration. The police found guns in his vehicle, and when they searched his cellphone for anything suspicious they discovered texts relating to a gang. He was arrested. The Court decided that “because police had not obtained a warrant (permission granted by a judge) or Riley’s permission, they had violated his Fourth Amendment rights to privacy.” States The New York Times ‘Upfront’ magazine’s article, “Does your phone have the right to remain silent?” written by Patricia Smith. This is interesting because although people have previously debated on this subject and there have been different rulings in similar court cases, the Supreme Court seems very united on this. It unanimously decided that searching through a person's personal digital files without permission is against the 4th amendment which prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures". This apparently includes smartphones.

When the police search through a person’s private information stored on their digital device it is against our constitutional rights, and against the basic right to to privacy. For many, viewing someone’s private texts or digital information is immoral. “A cellphone GPS for example, provides a precise record of a person’s whereabouts over time.” This is an especially debatable subject especially since as the quote claims, it shows the exact location of anywhere a person has been. Although this could be a huge aid in bringing a criminal to justice using this evidence, sometimes it isn't really needed at the exact moment. If the police are unable to obtain a warrant, they would not really need to search the cellphone anyway, if the judge deems it not to be necessary.

Digital devices contain so much information that is is different from any other object that stores data because it is so much more than that and can access many times the amount of information as a library and records so much of a humans life that some details may not want to be publicized. In ‘Upfront’ Chief Justice says, a “visitor from Mars might conclude they [smartphones]  were an important feature of human anatomy.” This same article also states that “People’s most private information, from bank records to personal correspondence and intimate photos is all accessible from a device… Digital information is different than paper and cabinets and lockboxes” these examples bring up the interesting point that smartphones are just so different from any other past way of storing stuff and includes so many different devices that got all put together into one. There is a sort of lack of privacy that accompanies the wonders of smartphones that can not be compared to anything else because it contains so much of one's life that is all kept on one cellphone.

However, there is another side to this idea; that cellphones and computers are being used to convict people. It is very helpful in finding the activities of criminals and information pertaining to court cases. Some argue that this justifies a warrantless search and that it is needed to “prevent the destruction of evidence”  before it is accessed by officers because of the delay of having to get a warrant. People in favor of warrantless searches suggest that they are needed to protect police officers from dangerous situations. However, according to The New York Times ‘Upfront’ searches without a warrant are permitted in the Fourth Amendment’s exception for “emergency circumstances”. And that “evidence [that] could be destroyed or hidden by ‘remote unplug’ or encryption programs could be addressed by an officer turning off the phone or placing it in a special evidence bag until a warrant can be obtained.” This shows just how these problems could be solved or prevented in such circumstances.

          All of this discussion about the Supreme Court ruling has made the world consider other questions about Internet privacy and the role that digital evidence may provide in future court cases. This is not a unique case in that incriminating texts and videos were found on a cellphone, whether they had permission or not. Police should have to obtain a warrant to search someone’s phone. Searching a cellphone without a warrant is an infringement on your rights in the Fourth Amendment.