Courts Divided Over Searches of Cellphones

Somini Sengupta describes the current regulations surrounding the use of technological evidence in criminal cases and evaluates future possible changes and the effects the evidence can have. In addition, she develops the various arguments behind the drive to change the rules that permit searches on personal technology. Technology is progressing at a much faster pace than the laws are keeping up with, resulting in a need to adjust the regulations in order to fit modern society. For example, Sengupta explains the debate if privacy protection applies to smart phones. She supports this statement with examples from the Louisiana federal appeals court and a criminal lawyer.  The criminal lawyer, Hanni Fakhoury, states, “[The courts] can’t even agree if there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages that would trigger Fourth Amendment protection.” This quotation demonstrates the difficulty for courts to reach a decision regarding the appropriate and fair amount of accessibility to personal technology during investigations.  Sengupta then transitions to explain that this topic is currently relevant because of the soon approaching changes that are anticipated to be made in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.  This potential change is important because of the history of bickering over the topic between parties and groups with opposing views. She then begins to implicate the effects of electronic searches by describing a Rhode Island case.  Without the ability to search electronics, the case would never have formed or progressed.  Sengupta's tone is understanding in that she displays both sides of the argument.  She values to abundance of information presented through electronics.  In addition, it is clear that she understands the huge difference technological information can make in a case and its ability to provide justice. Overall, she is able to present both sides of the story, while also developing her accepting tone towards electronic search without specific warrants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/technology/legality-of-warrantless-cellphone-searches-goes-to-courts-and-legislatures.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp