SCOTUS reviews 4th Amendment vs. surveillance case

Friday, June 16, 2017
 | 
Charlie Butts, Billy Davis (OneNewsNow.com)

talking on cell phone while drivingA legal organization that advocates for constitutional freedom is watching a 4th Amendment case currently being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case is Carpenter v. The United States, which reached the court from the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals.

The case involves a gang of armed robbers who were tracked by authorities after one of the robbers confessed to the crime and gave up his cell phone number and the numbers of his accomplices. Using cell phone data, authorities analyzed the usage history to trace their movements for 127 days, a Washington Post story explained

Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice says long before cell phones came into being, court rulings would suggest the police can monitor phone movements. That doesn't apply now, he insists. 

“I think that would be a very bad interpretation when applied to today's technology,” says Levey, “because the government might as well put a GPS device on your car and the Supreme Court has said the government can't do that without a warrant.”

In the Washington Post story, criminal law professor Orin Kerr summarized the two questions presented to the high court:

I gather, then, that the case will consider two distinct questions. First, is the collection of the records a Fourth Amendment search? And second, if it is a search, is it a search that requires a warrant?

police lights flashingThe government argues cell phone owners opt in to third-party police access when they sign a contract with the company. Most of the data came from provider MetroPCS while some "roaming" data came from Sprint. 

But Levey doesn't agree.

“You're really not consenting to anything when you use it,” he says, “and to say that by using a cell phone you have to give up all your Fourth Amendment rights, it would result in a government too powerful and too intrusive for my taste, and I think the taste of most Americans.”

In taking up the case, he adds, the Supreme Court can update old rulings based on modern technology and determine whether police can have access to the information without a warrant or not.

Kerr described the SCOTUS review as a "momentous development" because the future of surveillance law hinges on the coming ruling. 

 

Consider Supporting Us?

The staff at Onenewsnow.com strives daily to bring you news from a biblical perspective. If you benefit from this platform and want others to know about it please consider a generous gift today.

MAKE A DONATION

Comments

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details

SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWSBRIEF

SUBSCRIBE

VOTE IN OUR POLL

When you hear that the FBI is claiming it 'lost' thousands of timely Peter Strzok text messages…

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

2 dead, 19 injured in KY school shooting; suspect held
Virginia Senate passes bill to allow guns in churches
Justice Dept. to leave 'no stone unturned' to find texts
Pence visits Western Wall amid tensions with Palestinians
Trump applies tariffs to solar panels, washing machines

LATEST FROM THE WEB

Think government health care works? Think again
Haiti an idyllic paradise?
Being black in America is a ‘disability,’ black law professor argues
Professor: Small chairs in preschools are sexist, ‘problematic,’ and ‘disempowering’
Shock poll: Americans want massive cuts to legal immigration

CARTOON OF THE DAY

Cartoon of the Day
NEXT STORY
Rainbow flag OK, but national motto crosses the line

Houston police cruiser with rainbow decalsGovernment agencies, including police departments, have raised a question during "gay pride" month that a constitutional attorney suggests ought to be answered.