In the 2018 Carpenter v. United States case, the court ruled that the United States was violating the Fourth Amendment by retrieving the historical information, where the physical location of cellphones was obtained without using a search warrant. I support the ruling of the court by stopping the government from using its power to violate the rights of the citizens (Justia, 2018). According to the Fourth Amendment, the citizens have the right to be secure, and they protected against being searched or seized without a warrant or probable cause. Before Carpenter v. United States was passed, the American government was interfering with the privacy and security of people, which is an unethical act. The government was using the information obtained to surveille the citizens, and that interfered with their privacy at their personal space. Despite the technological advances and need to maintain national security, the government did not have any right to attain personal location records.
Amidst the national and international insecurities caused by terrorism and crime, the government has no right to interfere with the privacy and security of the citizens. It is clear that the government was abusing power by illegally obtaining cellphone location of the citizens. If the government was interested in protecting the states, then it should follow the right procedure. For the search warrant to be provided to obtain cellphone location, the government will be required to provide the basis for interfering with personal privacy (Diamantis, 2018). In that way, surveillance will be done to the suspected individuals, and the privacy of other citizens will not be affected. Without a search warrant, any information the government obtains cannot be used in the court to accuse a citizen of any crime as it will be illegal.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Deontology ethics is determined by the rightness or wrongness of an act the government's act of accessing cellphone location without a search warrant was wrong (Paquette,
Sommerfeldt, & Kent, 2015). The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against seizure or search without a probable cause or search warrant. Through obtaining the cellphone location information would help promote security and prevent acts such as terrorism, the government ignored the Constitution. The Supreme Court decision of the government being wrong on obtaining data without a search warrant would help follow the right procedure. It would prompt the government first to get a warrant, then surveilled the suspected people with a probable cause. In that way, the information obtained can be used in making a case court against the suspect. The government will also be setting an example of adherence to the Constitution, aimed at protecting the privacy rights of citizens.
When the citizens are aware that the government has been surveilling them without their knowledge, the situation could get work. Technology has developed, which means the citizens can use advanced measures such as dark technology to hide their operations (Kerr, 2003). The largest loss will be experienced by the government as crime and terrorism activities will be hard to prevent. However, if the authority were to consider using the right measures, they can obtain information legally and apprehend the suspects of a crime. Since the act is deemed to be correct, it can even help prevent future crimes as the arrested individual will provide more information on a criminal organization. Therefore, I support the ruling of the court in the Carpenter v. United States case as it prompts the government to act in the right way and respect the constitutions and citizens privacy, which is an ethical act.
References
Diamantis, M. E. (2018). Privileging Privacy: Confidentiality as a Source of Fourth Amendment Protection. U. Pa. J. Const. L. , 21 , 485.
Justia. (2018). Carpenter v. the United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/16-402/
Kerr, O. S. (2003). The fourth amendment and new technologies: constitutional myths and the case for caution. Mich. L. Rev. , 102 , 801.
Paquette, M., Sommerfeldt, E. J., & Kent, M. L. (2015). Do the ends justify the means? Dialogue, development, communication, and deontological ethics. Public Relations Review , 41 (1), 30-39.
