Doe V. City of Intrusia
In 2014, the government, acting on the suspicion that the petitioner was processing and selling proscribed substances, requested the local cell phone carrier to clone the cell phone of the petitioner Joe Doe. Subsequently they gained access to text messages sent and received by the respondent. Based on this evidence, the petitioner Joe Doe was tried and convicted under an indictment charging various illegal transactions in narcotics. Doe has appealed his conviction claiming that the interception of text messages violated the unreasonable search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, all data from the text messages should have been excluded from his trial. The City of Intrusia argues that there was no physical intrusion into Mr. Doe's space and that police were acting quickly in order to uphold their duty to protect the community’s safety. The issues before the Court are thus two-fold:
- Does the Fourth Amendment protect text messages sent over a cell phone?
- Is there a “reasonable expectation of privacy” when texts are sent?
The fourth amendment protects the rights of the people against unreasonable search and seizure (U.S. Constitution). In Olmstead V United States, the court held that no violations of the petitioner’s fourth amendment rights had occurred because there was “no physical intrusion” into Olmstead’s space as argued by the respondent (Olmstead). This defence may in this case hold true. Silverman v United States also affirmed "unauthorized physical penetration into the premises occupied” by a suspect infringes upon their fourth amendment rights (Silverman). However, subsequently in Katz v United States, the court introduced the idea that the amendment "protects people, not places” (Katz). As such, there is no requirement for actual physical intrusion into personal space for infringement to be established. Justice John Harlan in a concurring opinion proposed a two pronged test; a subjective "reasonable expectation of privacy" test and an objective "recognition of the right to privacy by society" test (Katz).
The cell phone has become ubiquitous in everyday life. People rely on it for work, recreation and entertainment. Since it pervades every aspect of life, one would expect that it cannot be accessed without safeguards. Reliant on this test, it is the finding of this court that the fourth amendment protects text messages sent over a cell phone and that the rights of the petitioner were infringed upon. The text messages sent were private. By cloning the phone and accessing the messages, the officers conducted a search. While the officers’ actions were done with noble intentions, they ignored the relevant constitutional provisions. The officers seized Doe’s private text messages without his consent and without judicial review and supervision by not obtaining a surveillance warrant. A surveillance warrant specifies in the narrowest terms possible, the officers’ purview in investigating the suspect and by so doing imposes a duty of restraint on the officers. The granting of a warrant by an impartial judicial officer upon consideration of probable cause is, therefore, key to the protection of the rights of suspects and the general populace. This court cannot, therefore, validate an illegality retroactively as it would set a dangerous precedent.
In sending text messages, cell phone subscribers are aware that the cell phone carrier can potentially access the information. However, one expects just about anybody will not see that. In fact, people often send highly explicit text messages. If they expect that they would be accessed, they will not do so. The court holds that the petitioner had a reasonable and legitimate expectation of privacy because he would otherwise not have sent the text messages that implicated him. As such, with the evidence thus rendered inadmissible, the conviction is overturned.
Works Cited
Katz v United States. 389 U. S. 347. Supreme Court of the United States. 1967.
Supreme Court. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.
Olmstead V United States. 277 U. S. 438. Supreme Court of the United States. 1920.
The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.
Silverman v. United States. 365 U. S. 505, 511– 512. Supreme Court of the United States. 1961. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Web. 07 Apr. 2014.
U.S. Constitution. Art./Amend. IV
