I need help with Question 2, which is "Searches of texts and e-mails are subject to the same rules as searches of things under the Fourth Amendment. Is this statement true or false? Justify and discuss your response (Chapter 7). I'm trying to say that its true but I don't how to answer it.

public places. of a home, a private and highly protected property. es police dog sniffing the front door Searches and Seizures of Computers Searches and seizures of computers and other electronic gadgets (such as laptops, per- sonal digital assistants, and cell phones) have increasingly become problems in polic- ing because these devices are being used by criminals more frequently. The good news is that the police now use computers to solve crimes; the bad news is that criminals also use computers to plan and commit crimes. Two issues arise in computer searches: (1) Are these searches constitutional or are they Fourth Amendment violations, and (2) what procedures must law enforcement use to preserve the evidence seized? Legal Requirements In general, searches and seizures of computers have the same legal requirements as any other type of seizure, meaning there must be a warrant based on probable cause. A manual on computer searches, titled Computer Searches (issued by the District Attorney's Office of Alameda County, California), states that there are two require- ments for the issuance of a warrant to search a computer: (1) "probable cause to believe the data to be seized exists, is evidence of a crime, and is presently located at the place to be searched," and (2) "a reasonably detailed description of the place to be searched and the data to be seized." Both requirements are similar to those for non-computer searches. Probable Cause in Computer Searches Probable cause is likely established if the suspect is in possession of incriminating data, if the data are stored on a computer, and if the computer is likely to be found in the place to be searched. The requirement for a description of the place to be searched is similar to what is required for other types of warrants; the warrant must "contain a reasonably detailed description of the home or office that will be searched." Describing the hardware or software to be searched also needs particularity. Computers and Reasonable Expectation of Privacy How is reasonable expectation of privacy determined for computers? A Justice Department publication says: To determine whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in information stored in a computer, it helps to treat the computer like a closed container such as a briefcase or file cabinet. The Fourth Amendment generally prohibits law Searches and Seizuenforcement from accessing and viewing information stored in a computer without a contents warrant if it would be prohibited from opening a closed container and examining its containe contents in the same situation.3 construc There is no reasonable expectation of privacy, however, in the following cases: (1) when of perso a person has made such information openly available, (2) when the contents of stolen computers are involved, (3) when the control of the computer has been given given to a third Goverr party, and (4) when the owner loses control of the file. No Cot Searches and Seizures of Text Messages in a Cell Phone e-mail inform In two cases decided together in 2013, the Supreme Court for the first time dealt with order d States v. Wurie the applicability of the Fourth Amendment to searches of cell phones. In United States v. (ISP) Wurie, Boston police officers observed Brima Wurie conduct a drug sale from his vehicle holde The officers then arrested Wurie, conducted a search of Wurie's person, and seized two cell phones. Later, while at the police station one of the cellphones, an old-fashioned pany 'flip" phone, rang repeatedly. The officers inspected the phone and noticed that it was eral receiving a number of calls from a number identified as "my house." The officers opened direc the phone, obtained the phone number for "my house," and inspected the screen saver e-ma of the phone, which featured a young woman and a small child. The officers obtained hear an address for the number and went to the location. A young woman who matched the the picture on the phone answered the door. The officers then obtained a search warrant fede and conducted a search of the premises, where they found a large amount of crack wir cocaine, drug paraphernalia, and firearms. The state then charged Wurie with multiple app offenses. Wurie moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that the initial search the of the flip phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The District Court denied his app motion, and he was convicted and sentenced to 262 months in prison. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the search incident exception to the Fourth Amendment did not allow police officers to search the digital contents of a cell phone. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, along with California v. Riley. V. Riley (2013) In California v. Riley, police officers in San Diego arrested David Riley for driv- ing with a suspended driver's license. They impounded and searched the vehicle; the 5 5 search uncovered two handguns. The government then charged Riley with two felo- nies related to these firearms. The search also revealed several items that pointed to Riley being involved in the "Bloods" street gang. At the time of his arrest Riley was carrying a so-called "smart phone." The officers searched the contents of the phone at the scene of arrest and again at the station. The phone contained evidence of "Blood" activity, including a recent shooting. The state then charged Riley for his participa- tion in this shooting. Riley moved to suppress the evidence from the search of his cell phone, contending that there were no exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless search. Riley was eventually convicted. The California Court of Appeals affirmed the Wurie case. conviction. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari, and combined the case with The Supreme Court reversed both convictions. The Court noted that warrantless searches incident to arrest are justified to ensure the safety of the arresting officer and protect against the destruction of evidence, but that such warrantless searches do not extend to the contents of cell phones. Cell phones, by their nature, do not pose a danger to the arresting officer, and the act of confiscateng the phone prevents the destruction TER 7 of any evidence contained in the phone, and there is therefore no need > examine thewithout a nining its contents of the phone. The Court acknowledged the wealth of personal information es: (1) when contained in a modern cell phone. The Court affirmed that the Fourth Amendment was ts of stolen constructed in order to prevent the government from arbitrarily intruding on this type of personal information. n to a third Government Seizure of E-mails No Court decision has thus far addressed the specific issue of government seizure of e-mails. A 2007 decision of the federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, however, is dealt with informative on this issue. The court of appeals upheld, with modification, a district court ed States v. order prohibiting the government from seizing e-mails from an Internet service provider is vehicle (ISP) account of a resident of the Southern District of Ohio without notice to the account eized two holder and an opportunity for a hearing (Warshak v. United States [6th Cir. 2007]). Warshak v. United ashioned In Warshak, federal government agents investigated Steven Warshak and the com- (2007) at it was pany he owned for possible mail and wire fraud, money laundering, and other fed- s opened eral offenses. The government agents obtained an order from a U.S. magistrate judge en saver directing the ISP to turn over to government agents information related to Warshak's obtained e-mail account with the Internet service provider. This was done without any type of ched the hearing or prior notification. The issuance of the order was based on the provisions of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which was passed in 1986 and codified as a warrant federal statute (18 U.S.C., $ 2701). These provisions relate to the accessibility of "stored of crack wire and electronic communications and transactional records." The government later multiple appealed a district court's preliminary injunction limiting the government's access to search the defendant's e-mail. Rejecting the government's claim to broad access, the court of ied his appeals said: Circuit [We have little difficulty agreeing with the district court that individuals maintain a Fourth reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mails that are stored with, or sent or received phone. through, a commercial ISP. The content of e-mail is something that the user " seeks to preserve as private, " and therefore may be constitutionally protected. driv- In sum, the federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in Warshak that an e-mail le; the holder or subscriber must be given prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before felo- seizure, or the government must show that the account holder maintained no expecta- ed to tion of privacy and therefore enjoys no Fourth Amendment protection. was In an era of pervasive use of e-mails by the government and private sectors, the ne at issue of law enforcement searches and seizures of e-mails for investigative purposes pod" will ultimately have to be resolved by the Court. ipa cell Drug Testing Public Employees, Including Police Officers tless Drug testing public employees, including police officers and other law enforcement the personnel, is a common practice and needs to be addressed as an issue. Is it an allow- with able form of Fourth Amendment search and seizure? The Court has not directly addressed the constitutionality of drug testing police officers, but in 1989 it decided less two cases on the issue of drug testing public employees. Neither decision, however, and provides definite answers for police officers because they were based on the peculiar not facts in those cases. ger In the first case, the Court, in a 5-to-4 split, held that the U.S. Customs Service's on drug-testing program for employees seeking promotion or transfer to positions1. Identify and explain the effect of the major court decisions in the development of the motor vehicle exception to the Fourth Amendment (Chapter 8)? OR 2. Searches of texts and e-mails are subject to the same rules as searches of things under the Fourth Amendment. Is this statement true or false? Justify and discuss your response (Chapter 7)