The world is now in the digital age and every person on this planet leaves a digital footprint. The criminal world is also keeping up with the times by utilizing various technologies to run its enterprises. However, most often, law enforcement professionals fail to differentiate the reality of changing times. The Supreme Court usually serves as the medium to intervene on behalf of the US Constitutional Amendments and it used the 2014 case of Riley v. California to educate law enforcement on certain important matters. A cellphone is not just a calling device anymore. The phones can store photos, videos, facilitate video conferencing, chats, text messages, and even hold enough information equivalent of an office workstation.
The case of Riley v. California is not about police officers and their job preventing and fighting crime. While the defendant was presumably guilty, the focus here should remain on the law and the Fourth Amendment. Illegal searches and seizures are a violation to this Constitutional Amendment. Although the victim in this case is a seasoned criminal, the rule of the law should not alter the purpose. The law stands to protect Riley despite of his criminal actions. The presence of criminal action is not sufficient ground to engage in unconstitutional practices. The police should view cellphones as personal computers or file cabinets rather than as mere communication devices (Reyes, “Why Police May Still Have Free Reign to Search an Arrestee's Cell Phone Despite a Warrant Requirement”).
In the virtual world, a cellphone is an office on its own. It has boundaries and to breach it legally, the police should procure a warrant which specifies what materials they are going to search. The search warrant is not license to extract information or media files pertaining to the defendant’s family. It is not for use as a tool to gain any unfair advantage over the defendant based on the any data recovered which is irrelevant to the case. The Supreme Court failed to explain this aspect clearly and this failure is likely to take the form of a different lawsuit in future. An appropriate search warrant should be on the same lines as obtaining a warrant to search a property. The areas of search, specific items, and the purpose of the search should feature in the warrant. Moreover, the search should happen only in the presence of the defendant or the defendant’s attorney. Privacy rights are the same for everyone in the United States. Criminal actions cannot become the basis for the police to violate the sanctity of the US Constitution.
Works Cited
Reyes, Veronica. “Why Police May Still Have Free Reign to Search an Arrestee's Cell Phone Despite a Warrant Requirement” Jurist.org. JURIST Legal News and Research Services, 3 February 2016. Web. 29 July 2016. < http://www.jurist.org/dateline/2016/02/veronica-reyes-search-phones.php>
