Name:
Tutor:
Course:
Date:
Doe versus City of Intrusia
In Doe versus City of Intrusia case, the fourth amendment covers the sent text messages over a cell phone. In the constitution, the protection of one’s privacy is contained within the rights enjoyed and maintained forthwith. It states that the fourth amendment is concerned with the secure protection and prevention from unreasonable searches as well as seizures without any violation whatsoever (Lee 16). There are no warrants issued especially when a probable case is in line for the seizure and freedom from any arbitrary intrusions from the government authority. However, caution has to be placed on the coverage of the text message sent over the phone. The fourth amendment under the Silverman versus United States did not cover conversations and wiretapping in the circumstances. Instead, the search and seizure could not be covered in the process. Therefore, in Doe versus City of Intrusia, it is also applicable. There is lack of probable cause within the case’s context since there is no description of the place where the searches would be carried out. In addition, there was no earlier delivery of the interests to be protected by Doe in the case scenario.
The reasonable expectation of privacy when texts are sent in the Doe versus City of Intrusia case did not meet the standing to claim protection. Doe did not provide for sufficient evidence in warranting the exclusion of the texts from being considered under the expectation of privacy. In defense of the legal authorities in the investigation, there was clear absence of physical intrusion into Doe’s role in the availability of methamphetamine towards the local teenagers. In Doe’s plea, his rights and freedoms are in question regarding the forms of violation under the fourth amendment. Taslitz (13) argues that the coverage of color of the governmental authority is clearly exempted from the fourth amendment. In the same scenario, adjudging the Olmstead versus United States case on reasonable expectation of privacy, Doe did not exhibit the same. When he sent the texts, he was acting on his own volition without the privacy expectation as protected by the fourth amendment. It is not a mere subjection expectation from Doe, but rather the level of protection he required under his rights to privacy. It was not interfered with from the beginning, as it did not curtail any of his subjection to the investigation.
There
is a societal expectation of privacy in the process of text messaging. Text
messaging is a personal endeavor and meant for personalized utility. Therefore,
under any circumstance, society has to defend the rights and freedoms
guaranteed to an individual when it concerns the text messaging. Under the
constitutional provisions within the fourth amendment, people’s right to
privacy is exempt from arbitrary governmental intrusions (Gounaris and Bali 17). The intrusions not acting on governmental
authority are also exempt from the amendment. Thus, society has expectation in
protection of the same rights and freedoms to privacy in text messaging as it
validates the use. The expectation is protected by society as Doe was carrying
out his freedoms under stipulated rights protection. In defense of the police,
the evidence acquired under the investigation from the methamphetamine sale and
distribution, protection of the community’s safety was paramount. There was no
rights violation on Doe despite the subjectivity of expectation under the
societal basis. Of importance was the reason and esteemed protection of the
fourth amendment, which yielded the results.
Works Cited:
Gounaris, Anieli, and Maximus Balli. Spies and Snitches: Electronic Privacy Protection and Challenges. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2012. Print.
Lee, Cynthia. The Fourth Amendment: Searches and Seizures: Its Constitutional History and the Contemporary Debate. Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books, 2011. Print.
Taslitz, Aaron. “Respect and the Fourth Amendment.” Scholarly Commons Law 4.2 (2007): 11-27. Print.