THE FOURTH AMENDMENT JURISDICTION

In the case of City of Intrusia vs. Mr. Doe’s, the Fourth Amendment enforces the notion that every individual’s home is his own fortress, protected from unfair searches and seizures of possessions by the state.  It shields against subjective arrests, and is the foundation of the law concerning search warrants, wiretaps, stop-and-frisk, and safety inspections, along with other kinds of surveillance, in addition to being vital to many other criminal law issues and to privacy law.

Text messages mainly reveal the most intimate of our thoughts and emotions to the ones who are projected to safeguard them from any publication. The fact that we now carry these devices within ourselves almost all the time they have become part of us. Presently they carry most of our private issues, they are, in fundamental nature, receptacles for our minds—exterior hard drives for our brains. Therefore, accessing them is nearly like tapping the personal thoughts and demanding information out, and that cannot be performed without then violating the Fourth Amendment protection against private space protection. Text messaging exists in the 21st Century cellular phones. By concentrating on the technological actualities of text messaging and the severe threat created by warrantless intrusions into the ever-present methods of communication, I hold that defendant Mr. Doe has a standing to dispute the warrantless intrusions of his text messages and I therefore suppress both the text messages and the evidence obtained from them as illegal search. It is foolish to challenge that the extent of privacy secured to the public by the Fourth Amendment is been wholly unaffected by the progress of technology (OLMSTEAD v. UNITED STATES, 1927).

I have noted that even the US Supreme Court has rejected to offer assistance to lower courts. It has struggled towards the lawful challenges raised by rising technology, mainly particularly in the area of mobile phones along with contents allowing our courts to decide upon the applicability of technology in the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the mobile phone evidences are therefore illegal because of the warrantless intrusion of Mr. Doe’s text messages including all of the searches and illegal content acquirement; consequently, this is in infringement of the Fourth Amendment. This Court admits that it is objectively rational for individuals to suppose the inside of the mobile text messages to stay private, particularly vis-à-vis rule enforcement. Mr. Doe has a right to privacy regarding his text message exchanges, whether police obtained incriminating information from his phone concerning the sales of methamphetamine this amounts to illegal privacy intrusion (BOND v. UNITED STATES, 1999).

I also find that a cell phone and a text message carry far more vital information than simply a phone digit. Text messaging is a means by which individuals can share information and converse their feelings, emotions, and ideas. Text messages and mobile phone communications are all encompassing that some individuals may take them to be indispensable means or necessary items for self expression and identification. Here, the text messages permitted Mr. Doe to communicate with other individuals regarding his private undertakings. Therefore, taking the real setting of a text message into consideration, it is apparent that it requires Fourth Amendment protection (KYLLO v. UNITED STATES, 2000).

The exclusionary rule being among the ways the amendment is enforced, maintains that evidence obtained by means of a Fourth Amendment infringement is usually inadmissible within criminal trials. Evidence acquired because of an unlawful search of Mr. Doe’s Phone contents is therefore inadmissible as except if it would have been discovered through legal means.

References

BOND v. UNITED STATES., 1999. Bond v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved July 13, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_9349

KYLLO v. UNITED STATES., 2000. Kyllo v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved July 13, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_8508

OLMSTEAD v. UNITED STATES., 1927. Olmstead v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved July 13, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1927/1927_493