Every individual is generally entitled to many civil liberties as stipulated in the Bill of Rights. In other words, everyone is endowed with particular rights such as the pursuit of happiness, liberty as well as life. Civil liberties include equal protection, due process right, and a prohibition against any regulation of the state that supersedes the regulation of the federal government. Such liberties are birthrights. Hence, they are not gifted by the action of the government. The government cannot minimize or take away these individual freedoms without due process. As such, the Supreme Court is a crucial instrument in ensuring that the government respects the civil liberties of individuals.
A Case on Civil Liberties
In the case of Carpenter V. United States, the central civil liberty was privacy, more importantly, location tracking, cell phone privacy, as well as Privacy and Technology. In 2011 in Detroit, the government acquired cell phone location data for criminal investigation suspects. The government obtained this information without a warrant of probable cause. Timothy Carpenter was one of the suspects in the case. His location records brought to light numerous separate location data points (ACLU, 2018). This data was gathered for several months without his knowledge.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Carpenter v. United States is one of the most critical opinions of the Fourth Amendment. The most significant query, in this case, is whether the government inherently violated the Fourth Amendment by accessing Carpenter’s phone location data without obtaining a warrant. The Fourth Amendment declares “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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 (National Archives, 2018).” It, therefore, needs no telling that the government ought to protect and respect the privacy of its citizenry. As such, obtaining location records without a warrant violates the privacy of an individual. It is imperative to note that the right to privacy is especially vital in the digital age. Privacy facilitates a person’s autonomy. Thus, when individuals feel that they are not entirely autonomous in their actions, they may restrain critical elements of themselves.
The Supreme Court’s Involvement
Notably, in Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that it is vital for the government to have a warrant to acquire access to the cell phone location history of an individual. The court declared that acquiring such information is a search as stipulated in the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, obtaining a probable cause warrant from a judge is needed. This ruling is important, especially in today’s world of technology. The constitution affords privacy rights to people. Therefore, it is crucial for people to be certain that their privacy rights are respected, more specifically, when it comes to the use of technology. The service providers of cell phones generally gather and store an individual’s location information every time they receive or place a call. Because of this, an individual’s private information may be exposed. Cell phones are fundamental in peoples’ lives because of their efficiency. Hence, users expect that information on their location will remain private. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s ruling demonstrated that the seizure and search of phone records, including the user’s movement and the location are against the Fourth Amendment unless a warrant is provided. As such, the citizens are ensured that their private information is protected. As technology progresses, there is a need for safeguarding the privacy of persons, henceforth, safeguarding cell phone data is key in ensuring this.
Before the case landed in the Supreme Court, it initially passed through the lower courts. When Carpenter was indicted, his case was initially heard in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The defense counsel wanted to suppress the evidence gathered from the phone location information as it violated the Fourth Amendment as well as the Stored Communications Act (Rozenshtein, 2018). The court rejected this argument claiming that the government met the statutory standard. After Carpenter was convicted based on the evidence obtained from his cell phone location, he appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (ACLU, 2018). According to ACLU (2018), the government violated the Fourth Amendment in this case. The Sixth Circuit finally asserted that no warrant was is needed. It explained that even though personal communications content is private, the user of a cell phone should not demand privacy in the location information. Later, Carpenter filed a petition for the Supreme Court to examine the case which the court agreed in June 2017.
Powers Granted to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction. Herein, the court can hear a specific case on appeal. In particular, if the case involves federal or constitutional law. Because of this power, the Supreme Court was able to rule on Carpenter V. United States (United States Courts). Additionally, the Supreme Court safeguards civil liberties by removing regulations that violate the Constitution. As such, it is entitled to hear a civil liberty case.
Conclusion
The right to privacy is significant in the United States. The government must safeguard the privacy of its citizenry. In the case of Carpenter V. United States, the lower courts violated the Fourth Amendment by accessing Carpenter’s cell phone location information. This information played a part in Carpenter’s conviction. However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court acknowledged that Carpenter’s right to privacy was infringed.
References
ACLU. (2018). Carpenter v. United States. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/cases/carpenter-v-united-states
National Archives. (2018). The Bill of Rights: A Transcription. Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-the-u-s-bill-of-rights
Rozenshtein, A. Z. (2018). Fourth Amendment Reasonableness after Carpenter. 128 Yale Law Journal Forum (2019 Forthcoming) . Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3304750.
United States Courts. (Undated). About the Supreme Court. Retrieved February 28, 2019, from https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about
