United States v. Chick and Arkansas v. Sanders

Wire’s cell phone continued to go off multiple times and on the front screen of the cellophane a picture of a lady holding a baby kept coming up on the front screen with the caller ID reading “my house” on it. The police then opened the phone and traced the call to an address in Boston knowing that Wirier might have more drugs in his South Boston home.

The police went to the address, knocked and upon the owner opening the door the police smelled marijuana. The police recognized the woman who opened the door as the one that was in the caller ID picture.

The police obtained a warrant and found 21 5 grams of cocaine, a firearm, ammunition, marijuana, and paraphernalia. On March 28, 2008, a Grand Jury indicted Inure for a felony possession of a firearm and ammunition, distribution of cocaine Nothing 1000 feet of a school, and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Inure moved to suppress the evidence gained from his cell phone and argued that by the police searching his phone had violated his Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The Court denied Wire’s motion on grounds that the cell phone reach was incident to his arrest and was limited and reasonable. The question that arises is does the Fourth Amendment allow police to conduct a Narrates search on the cell phone belonging to a person who has been lawfully arrested? Chief Justice Brown’s opinion is that a search of the cellophane of the convicted is unconstitutional because of the protection they obtain through the Fourth Amendment, Warranties Search and Seizure. Through the Fourth Amendment the convicted is protected from unconstitutional search.

In this case the Narrates search is defined as an unconstitutional search. The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” and provides that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

” The police in Hurler did not have a warrant to search the respondent’s cellular device.

Not only did they not have a warrant but they did not have probable cause. As in the cases United States v. Chick and Arkansas v. Sanders which it sakes probable cause necessary to search the trunk of a vehicle you should need a “arrant or probable cause to search a cellular device.

The cellophane of the convicted is a lot like a trunk of someone’s car. It is someone’s storage in which they can store something and leave it locked for the sole fact that they don’t want people seeing “hat is on or in it.

A phone is someone’s private property Just as a trunk is on a car. Causes the trunk is locked, the police need a warrant . The tact that the police saw the picture of the girl and the label “My Home” makes no difference.

Whether there Nas no ID label or there was the picture and label were not probable cause enough to go and search the house. Because the search of the cell phone was unwarranted and unlawful through the Fourth Amendment, the arrest of Wire’s girlfriend and finding of the firearm, drugs, and ammo were unconstitutional as well.

Even though Inure was lawfully arrested, the convicted still do have certain rights and the right to not having their cellophane searched without a warrant is one of them. In Chimed v. California although the police do have the right to “search the arrestee’s person and anywhere arm’s length away for their safety’ a cell phone is of a different category. A cellophane contains a plethora of personal data in which you have to open and search through.

A majority of the data searched through might not even contain information about the case but only expose the convicted in all aspects of their life which is against their rights.

The cellophane might not even have any information at all about the current case. Searching the phone did nothing to the protection of the officers Inch is Chimed v. Californians sole purpose. In Us v.

Park for example, the court included that a cell phone should be viewed not as an item immediately associated Ninth the person but as a possession within an arrestee’s immediate control which cannot be searched once the phone comes into the exclusive control of the police, except for exigent circumstances.

The police had no probable cause to search the phone for it was a call from Wire’s home with a picture of his child and girlfriend as the caller ID photo. Justice Scott writes on the dissent saying that because Hurler was lawfully arrested anything on Wire’s person is now evidence and in the possession of the police Inch makes it free game to be searched (Chimed v. California). Also obtaining multiple calls from the same number which may be a lead to the arrest and confiscation of more illegal drugs is probable cause enough.

In Chimed v.

California the police are allowed to search the person and use anything found as evidence. The phone was on the person which makes it constitutional to search it. Because the search was constitutional and they had a lead that there be more drugs in Wire’s home this gave the clause to trace the call back to his home, knowing that it was his mom that was calling because of the Caller ID and the picture of the woman they saw upon arriving to the house.

The fact that the number called multiple times which could have led to the other line destroying evidence because of worry that Hurler Nan’s picking up. The destroying of evidence was probable cause to search the phone and track the call. The police had all the reason to search Wire’s cellophane because it was on his person.

Because of the facts of the case and the tip that he may have more drugs at his house, this gave the police the right to trace the call and reach the house after smelling marijuana.

The court reversed and remanded the decision of the court on the grounds that the search of a cellophane does not help protect the cops from danger. Also, searching through someone’s personal cell phone is an invasion of their privacy and has personal information on it that may not pertain to the case. The police broke Wire’s Fourth Amendment right by searching his phone without a warrant. They then obtained evidence illegally by tracing the call back to his home and finding the drugs, in, an Amman on.