Search And Seizure Of Evidence From Computer And Other Technology Devices (Article Sample)

Search and Seizure of evidence from Computer and other technology devices
Institution
Name
Instructor
Date
Search and Seizure of evidence from Computer and other technology devices
The First Amendment prohibits making of any law respecting religious establishment, impeding free exercise of religion, infringing press freedom, abridging freedom of expression, interfering with right to peaceful assembly or prohibiting petitioning the government for grievance redress (Legal Information Institute, n.d). Therefore, this Amendment prohibits any law that infringes use of computer and any other technological devices in channeling these activities. The First Amendment is majorly about the conduct that can be or cannot be criminalized. For instance, the government is prohibited from acquiring phone logs, believed to be containing criminal evidence, without warrant supported by probable cause. This is because this infringes freedom of speech since people who made such conversation can be target for prosecution. Additionally, the government should not prohibit the use of computer, cellphones and any other devices in communicating activities such as religious meetings, press releases, sending petition to the government, or communicating political rally.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution provides that the American people have the right to be secure in their houses, persons, papers, and effects against any unreasonable search or seizure. The Amendment prohibits government officials from searching and seizing evidence without warrant supported by a probable cause. The 4th Amendment applies to both the search and seizure of computers and other technology (electronic devices) (Legal Information Institute, n.d). The Amendment is concerned with the process the government agents must follow while conducting a criminal investigation. In U.S. v. Barth (W.D. Tex. 1998), the court ruled that the protection of computer hard drives and files by the Fourth Amendment is similar to the protection it provides to one’s closed personal effects and closed containers since intimate information can be stored in computers. Therefore in the case of United States v. Andrus (2007), the United States Court of Appeals’ Tenth Circuit ruled that computers and other technology devices fall in the same category as footlockers, suitcases and other personal items which require high degree of privacy. Hence government agents must obtain warrant to search and seize such devices. Warrant must be accompanied by probable cause, a reasonable ground to believe that there is evidence of crime will be found in a specified location.
The Fourth Amendment relies on exclusionary rule which provides that evidence obtained by violation of Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in criminal proceedings. However, in the Third Party Doctrine, the Fourth Amendment does not protect people when government receives information from third party. The 4th Amendment does not bar law enforcement agents from obtaining information about criminal evidence revealed and conveyed by a third party because the plaintiff already lack reasonable expectation of privacy. In the case of Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that the government can obtained a phone number dialed (through pen register) without violating Fourth Amendment because the person must convey numerical information to that phone company (the third party) (Solove, 2005).
The search warrant is sometimes not required to obtain evidence under Fourth Amendment. Searches that occur upon the arrest of the suspect -or by the consent of the suspect- do not require warrant...