Problem
Crime control depends on information, but that information usually comes from reluctant sources. As long as officers can see and hear information that is also available to the general public, they may use it without running afoul of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment enters the picture when officials rely on involuntary methods to gather information: searches and seizures, interrogation, and identification procedures. There are searches and seizures that go beyond law enforcement needs. These special needs searches and seizures include protecting officers from armed suspects, preventing drunk driving, protecting the property of detained suspects from loss or damage, protecting officials from lawsuits, and detecting drug use among students and employees.
Fourth Amendment analysis follows three steps based on answering three questions in the following order: (i) Was the law enforcement action a "search" or a "seizure"? If it was not, the Fourth Amendment is not involved at all, and the analysis ends. (ii) If the action was a search or a seizure, was it reasonable? If it was, the inquiry ends because the Fourth Amendment bans only unreasonable searches and seizures. (iii) If the action was an unreasonable search, does the Fourth Amendment ban its use as evidence?
The Fourth Amendment was created to make sure the government does not use illegal methods to get evidence in two kinds of cases prominent in British and American colonial history: government operations of the British Crown, and colonial governors, to enforce sedition and customs laws, not ordinary crimes. The Crown used writs of assistance and general warrants that essentially gave officials the authority to search or seize anyone, at anytime, anywhere. The Fourth Amendment was aimed at limiting government authority to infringe on the liberty of people to come and go as they wish and to protect their right to be left alone by the government. The Fourth Amendment balances the government's power to control crime and the right of people to be left alone by banning only unreasonable searches and seizures. Also, it applies only to government actions, not to the actions of private individuals.
If government actions do not invade a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the actions. They are left to the discretionary judgments of individual officers based on their training and experience in the field. In its decision in Katz v. U.S. (1967), the Supreme Court adopted the "privacy doctrine," which held that "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places" and created a two-prong test for analyzing the defendant's expectations of privacy: did he or she actually have an expectation of privacy (subjective privacy) and was it objectively reasonable (objective privacy). Since that decision, the Court has addressed the reasonable expectation of privacy issue in several significant cases involving such things as bank records, electronic surveillance, the use of thermal imagers, numbers dialed from a home telephone, and abandoned trash left on the curb for collection. The Court has also ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to discoveries of evidence in plain view, in public places, in open fields, or on abandoned property.
The "third party doctrine" holds that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit obtaining information by a third party. This rule applies to false friends, companies who provide essential services, and internet social networks. "False friend" undercover agents are not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, whether or not they use electronic surveillance. However, the Court has ruled that use of technologies such as thermal imaging and GPS tracking do constitute Fourth Amendment searches. Furthermore, the Court has ruled that companies providing internet services do have to turn over all information from e-mails to government agents if requested and no warrant is required to obtain such information. Finally, persons do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their text messages.
The Fourth amendment consists of seizures of persons and property. SCOTUS defines seizure of property as "some meaningful interference" with an individual's "possession" of property. In 2009 the courts recognized that the hard drive of a computer was akin to a residence in terms of privacy of information.
I. Investigate the means by which police gain access to a suspect's records of cell phone numbers called and received. How do police deal with text messages and emails? Obviously, criminals are using cell phones, text messages, and emails to plan and commit crimes. How does the Fourth Amendment apply to these types of technologies? In what do suspects have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
II. Find a Supreme Court case that deals with a Fourth Amendment issue. Identify the three-step process used in the case and determine whether each part of the process was met.