4th Amendment Warrantless Search & Seizure Issues - Technology & Privacy

Almost all of usrely on technology to carry out our day-to-day activities. We carry one, if not two devices such as a smart phone or tablet with us at all times. Courts continue to struggle to figure out how our use of these devices fit within notions of privacy and the 4th Amendment.

Previously, we discussed the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Jones, a case addressing the use of GPS tracking devices to trace criminal suspects. There, the Court held that GPS monitoring constitutes a search, although not one always requiring a warrant. The Court suggested that a warrant is required where long-term monitoring occurs, but is not necessary where monitoring only takes place for one to two days. Not surprisingly, this decision raised numerous questions regarding the interplay between technology and privacy.

Since then, numerous lower courts have been faced with similar challenges. In a recent case in Colorado, law enforcement officers were able to locate the whereabouts of a bank robber through a GPS device that was buried in the cash he was accused of stealing. After the robbery occurred, police activated the GPS device, which lead them to an intersection nearby. There, police blockaded approximately twenty cars at gunpoint, searching each car until the missing money was discovered in the suspect's vehicle and the suspect was arrested. The suspect's attorney argued that the evidence seized from his client's vehicle was inadmissible because the roadblock was unconstitutional. The District Court for the District of Colorado disagreed. Judge William J. Martinez held that the evidence was, in fact, admissible. Noting that he was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT