In present-day society, the conflict between public safety and individual privacy has been contentious due to the ostensibly strong arguments presented for both sides. In essence, the former argues that the safety of the public should be upheld irrespective of individual privacy to conceal information that could undermine the well-being of the public. Carpenter v. United States is an example of a recent case that was decided by the Supreme Court that entailed a controversy between public safety and individual privacy (Liptak, 2018). The outcome of the case posited that the Supreme Court opines that Cell Phone Location Records are safeguarded under the fourth amendment but can be accessed under “search and seizures.”
In the constitution, individual privacy rights are protected under the Fourth Amendment, which is a provision that addresses search and seizure law specifically in relation to the government and law enforcement intruding into people’s private property. However, at the time of the case, there was no provision for various types of modern digital information, including cell phone location data (Liptak, 2018). At the time of ratification of the Fourth Amendment, there were no clearly defined examples of what constituted private property ( Supreme Court of the United States, 2017 ). Over time, there have been various digital elements that have been developed that can be considered to be confidential and hence omitted from the act.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the Carpenter v. United States case, the primary issue that was debated was whether the warrantless search and seizure of users’ historical cell-phone records that display the movements and accurate GPS location of mobile device users over the course of the 127 days sanctioned by the Fourth Amendment. The need for public safety was underscored by the fact that within the location of the robberies committed, and wireless carriers had the data that could aid in creating the map and subsequently charge individuals with the crimes ( Supreme Court of the United States, 2017 ). Subsequently, the government could charge the involved individuals for violating interstate commerce, a critical component in the well-being of individuals in the region.
In relation to the majority opinion, most of the individuals reported that the authorities should have upheld public safety but from a very objective perspective that they do not infringe on the privacy of the entire public fraternity. However, personally, I believe public safety should be prioritized over the privacy irrespective of the scope of information required. In essence, based on the ethical tenet of utilitarianism, the greater good should be upheld even if the underlying means infringe on what is considered to be acceptable. By evaluating the entirety of the location information available, the authorities are able to ascertain all the involved individuals and bring them to justice hence preventing them from causing greater harm. Personally, lines of privacy should be drawn at the point where information not relevant to the given case is pursued.
Historical thought has been characterized by the government indiscriminately searching people’s private property to acquire the information they require. In this regard, there was a greater inclination by the Supreme Court to underscore arguments that support search and uses of the private location data. In addition to this, politics has been at the forefront of the civil rights movement, given the fact that most of the individuals who fought for these rights instigated extensive riots to advocate for more rights. As history has indicated, individuals who violate constitutional rights should be handed sentences that are comparable to actual infringement of the rights. Compensation for the individuals whose rights have been infringed should be pursued until the victim’s former position is restored.
References
Liptak, A. (2018, June 23). Warrant required for cellphone tracking data. New York Times , p. A1(L). See attached document
Supreme Court of the United States. (2017). Carpenter V. United States. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
