# data[].attributes.headline
How should the fourth amendment be interpreted today?

# data[].attributes.subject
How should the fourth amendment be interpreted today?

# data[].attributes.body
There are many things today that did not exist back in 1791, when the fourth amendment was written. Today, we have much more advanced forms of technology, such as cars, phones, and computers. When the fourth amendment was written, nobody took into consideration the possibility of spying on someone using their phone or computer. This is probably why it was until 1986, that new limits were placed on law enforcement's ability to gather and use information obtained through means of electronic surveillance as evidence in criminal prosecutions   (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986). Because of this, the fourth amendment should be revised to take into account the modernity of our society today.

# data[].attributes.headline
Modern case on how the fourth amendment has been challenged

# data[].attributes.subject
Modern case on how the fourth amendment has been challenged

# data[].attributes.body
Carpenter v. United States:

Carpenter v. United States, which set the stage for a new standard for privacy in the 21st century, requires the police to obtain a warrant before obtaining cell phone location history from a phone company. Carpenter, along with three other suspects were arrested for involvement with a series of several robberies in 2011. Police used suspects phones to obtain information/data, and track down other potential/suspected accomplices. Carpenter argued that because the collection of data technically fell under the fourth amendment, police were required to obtain some kind of warrant or form of probable cause; however, he claimed that the police only satisfied the "reasonable grounds" standard listed under the SCA.

Because of all of this, Carpenter moved to suppress the cell data, however his movement was denied,

The 6th circuit also denied his movement, claiming that he had no reasonable expectation of privacy on his phone due to the third-party doctrine. Ultimately, despite the fact that Carpenter was still found guilty, the Supreme Court came to the 5-4 decision that acquiring CSLI (Cell Site Location Information) fell under the "reasonable expectation of privacy" doctrine. The court also came to the conclusion that due to the unique and sensitive nature of cell site records, they did not fall under the third-party doctrine. The end result of this case was the decision that cell phone records were to be protected by the Fourth Amendment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Petitioner

Timothy Ivory Carpenter

Respondent

United States of America

Lower court

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Facts of the case

In April 2011, police arrested four men in connection with a series of armed robberies. One of the men confessed to the crimes and gave the FBI his cell phone number and the numbers of the other participants. The FBI used this information to apply for three orders from magistrate judges to obtain "transactional records" for each of the phone numbers, which the judges granted under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. 2703(d). That Act provides that the government may require the disclosure of certain telecommunications records when "specific and articulable facts show[] that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." The transactional records obtained by the government include the date and time of calls, and the approximate location where calls began and ended based on their connections to cell towers-"cell site" location information (CSLI).

Based on the cell-site evidence, the government charged Timothy Carpenter with, among other offenses, aiding and abetting robbery that affected interstate commerce, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951. Carpenter moved to suppress the government's cell-site evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, arguing that the FBI needed a warrant based on probable cause to obtain the records. The district court denied the motion to suppress, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Question

Does the warrantless search and seizure of cell phone records, which include the location and movements of cell phone users, violate the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

5-4 decision for Carpenter
majority opinion by John G. Roberts, Jr.

The government's acquisition of Carpenter's cell-site records was a Fourth Amendment search.

The government's warrantless acquisition of Carpenter's cell-site records violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The majority first acknowledged that the Fourth Amendment protects not only property interests, but also reasonable expectations of privacy. Expectations of privacy in this age of digital data do not fit neatly into existing precedents, but tracking person's movements and location through extensive cell-site records is far more intrusive than the precedents might have anticipated. The Court declined to extend the "third-party doctrine"-a doctrine where information disclosed to a third party carries no reasonable expectation of privacy-to cell-site location information, which implicates even greater privacy concerns than GPS tracking does. One consideration in the development of the third-party doctrine was the "nature of the particular documents sought," and the level of intrusiveness of extensive cell-site data weighs against application of the doctrine to this type of information. Additionally, the third-party doctrine applies to voluntary exposure, and while a user might be abstractly aware that his cell phone provider keeps logs, it happens without any affirmative act on the user's part. Thus, the Court held narrowly that the government generally will need a warrant to access cell-site location information.

Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined. Justice Kennedy would find that cell-site records are no different from the many other kinds of business records the government has a lawful right to obtain by compulsory process. Justice Kennedy would continue to limit the Fourth Amendment to its property-based origins.

Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, emphasizing the property-based approach to Fourth Amendment questions. In Justice Thomas's view, the case should not turn on whether a search occurred, but whose property was searched. By focusing on this latter question, Justice Thomas reasoned, the only logical conclusion would be that the information did not belong to Carpenter.

Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Alito distinguishes between an actual search and an order "merely requiring a party to look through its own records and produce specified documents"-with the former being far more intrusive than the latter. Justice Alito criticizes the majority for what he characterizes as "allow[ing] a defendant to object to the search of a third party's property," a departure from long-standing Fourth Amendment doctrine.

Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion in which he emphasizes the "original understanding" of the Fourth Amendment and laments the Court's departure from it.

"Carpenter v. United States." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-402. Accessed 3 Nov. 2020.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Timothy Ivory Carpenter United States of America United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit In April 2011, police arrested four men in connection with a series of armed robberies. One of the men confessed to the crimes and gave the FBI his cell phone number and the numbers of the other participants.

# data[].attributes.headline
What rights does the fourth amendment protect?

# data[].attributes.subject
What rights does the fourth amendment protect?

# data[].attributes.body
The fourth amendment protects against unlawful/unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to reasonable expectation of privacy, and the right against arbitrary arrests. The fourth amendment has made it such that a search warrant is first required before government officials may conduct searches and seizures. Sometimes, under the appropriate circumstances, a search warrant is not necessarily required for police to conduct a search and seizure. As long as there is probable cause, police can carry out searches and seizures.

# data[].attributes.body
Americans felt a need for the Fourth Amendment to protect them against unreasonable searches and seizures carried out by the government. In the years before the American Revolution, Great Britain would issue general warrants, which allowed officials to search freely for violations of its colonial taxation laws. This was done without consideration for the colonists or their privacy. During that time, Britain's former prime minister, William Pitt, wrote...

“The poorest man in his cottage may bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter—the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of that ruined tenement!”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.