In Philadelphia, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals presided over arguments to determine the Constitionality of tracking cell phone location and records without warrants. It is likely that the case will make its way to the Supreme Court. In the age of terrorism- domestic and international- it is prudent that the Justice Department have access to the cell phone records of a terrorist suspect. With the records the Justice Department can pinpoint the location of a suspected terrorist or access possible terrorist networks through cell phone records.
However, this should not be permitted without a warrant.The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: " 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."
According to the Fourth Admendment, a warrant can't even be issued without establishing prior probable cause for the warrant. A reasonable expectation of privacy is not ensured when the government is scrutinizing and tracking your phone calls without a warrant or even notification that you are being monitored. Warrants are a crucial way to ensure government transparency- as much transparency as possible anyway, and to prove to the suspect that there is probable cause and the reason for the seizure is justified and valid.
According to the Fourth Admendment, a warrant can't even be issued without establishing prior probable cause for the warrant. A reasonable expectation of privacy is not ensured when the government is scrutinizing and tracking your phone calls without a warrant or even notification that you are being monitored. Warrants are a crucial way to ensure government transparency- as much transparency as possible anyway, and to prove to the suspect that there is probable cause and the reason for the seizure is justified and valid.
Catherine Crump of the ACLU told the Philadelphia Inquirer: "We agree that cell phone tracking is lawful and appropriate in certain situations. The question is whether the government should first have to show that it has good reason to think such tracking will turn up evidence of a crime." Absolutely agreed. In a court of law the "burden of proof" is the responsibility of the prosecution. In this case, the prosecution is the U.S. government and the burden of proof lies on their shoulders. Warrants are an excellent way to demonstrate the validity of the investigation and also serve as a means to uphold the Fourth Amendment. The government should be able to access cell phone records for the sake of national security- but a lack of a warrant allows for arbitrary and invalid searches that have not been legitimately substantiated.
The likelihood of governmental abuse is assured. A lack of a warrant is synonymous with a complete lack of outside governmental controls.Thanks to bills like the Patriot Act, the U.S. government has been running amok. Tracking phone records without warrants is another symptom of the diesease of nefarious government control and a direct violation of Constitutional Rights and civil liberties. A frightening but possible outcome is the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the government. If that happens every citizen can kiss their reasonable expectation of privacy good bye.
