1) There are two ways to approach this case and it is arguable for both sides as to whether the evidence can come in or not. Before choosing a particular side, it is important to look at the concept of obtaining evidence from cell phones. With the immense developments in technology, cell phones have become incredibly capable of storing all types of information, some of which can be incriminating. Carrying a cell phone means that a person will always holding a huge source of private information on them at all times. This paves the way for a severe lack of privacy in cases such as these in which people’s cell phones are searched for evidence of another person’s crime.
The agents were looking for evidence that would incriminate Earl Stephens …show more content…
We can look to the case of United States v. Wurie, in which Brima Wurie’s phone was seized because police saw him participate in an apparent drug sale and the evidence on the phone was traced back to his home in which police found drugs, firearms, ammunition, and cash related to drug sales. Wurie failed to have the evidence against him suppressed because the police had a probable cause to suspect him. This provides another ambiguity in Dave’s case since the police had no probable cause to arrest him for the crime of importing illegal cheese. Probable cause means that there must be enough “reasonable trustworthy information… to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offence has been or is being committed” and the probable cause in this case is unrelated to …show more content…
In Riley v. California, Riley moved to suppress all evidence against him because evidence was obtained in a warrantless search, violating the Fourth Amendment. However, the trial court rejected his argument and the California Supreme Court also denied his petition for review. Since Peel’s case had a subpoena, it is comparable to this case where the defendant failed to suppress evidence against him even though it was a warrantless search. Similarly, in the case of Wurie v. United States, the defendant also failed to have evidence against him removed after the search of a cell phone revealed incriminating information. As, applying past cases will prove, it is virtually impossible to suppress evidence when the Courts are set on convicting the
The agents were looking for evidence that would incriminate Earl Stephens …show more content…
We can look to the case of United States v. Wurie, in which Brima Wurie’s phone was seized because police saw him participate in an apparent drug sale and the evidence on the phone was traced back to his home in which police found drugs, firearms, ammunition, and cash related to drug sales. Wurie failed to have the evidence against him suppressed because the police had a probable cause to suspect him. This provides another ambiguity in Dave’s case since the police had no probable cause to arrest him for the crime of importing illegal cheese. Probable cause means that there must be enough “reasonable trustworthy information… to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offence has been or is being committed” and the probable cause in this case is unrelated to …show more content…
In Riley v. California, Riley moved to suppress all evidence against him because evidence was obtained in a warrantless search, violating the Fourth Amendment. However, the trial court rejected his argument and the California Supreme Court also denied his petition for review. Since Peel’s case had a subpoena, it is comparable to this case where the defendant failed to suppress evidence against him even though it was a warrantless search. Similarly, in the case of Wurie v. United States, the defendant also failed to have evidence against him removed after the search of a cell phone revealed incriminating information. As, applying past cases will prove, it is virtually impossible to suppress evidence when the Courts are set on convicting the