Review this OMG article:https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/omg-cops-can-read-r-texts/1900818/(Links to an external site.)

Now, use this OMG article to answer the below questions. You have one attempt at this Article Reflection.

Question 1

Per the OMG article,text messaging, warrantless searches of cell phones are:

Group of answer choices

Not allowed

Allowed

Question 2

3.8pts

The defendant mentioned in the article was allegedly making a deal for which of the following:

Group of answer choices

Rock Cocaine

Ecstasy

Powder Cocaine

Moonshine

Seattle Sunshine

Business Law Textbooks

Flag question: Question 3

Question 3

4pts

The defendant's cell phone was confiscated along with what?

Group of answer choices

6 rocks of cocaine

His phone charger

6 tabs of Ecstasy

His calling card

10 oz of Seattle Sunshine

His Business Law Textbook

Flag question: Question 4

Question 4

3.8pts

The detective who found the defendant's phone found a text message about:

Group of answer choices

A Business Law reflection that he had just taken

A drug deal

A meeting in the ladies room

A reality show tryout for Jersey Shore

A Robin Thicke concert

Flag question: Question 5

Question 5

3.6pts

The article mentions that warrantless searches have been previously allowed for the following items that were "immediately

associated" with the person arrested:

Group of answer choices

Been containers

Clothing or cigarette packages

Iphones

Xbox games

Business Law Textbooks

Flag question: Question 6

Question 6

4pts

The OMG article states that the Court has ruled that warrantless searches:

Group of answer choices

are allowed within the first 90 minutes of arrest

are allowed within the first 30 minutes of arrest

are allowed within the first 30 seconds of arrest

are allowed within the first 90 seconds of arrest

are allowed within the first 90 days of arrest

Flag question: Question 7

Question 7

3.6pts

Based on the OMG article and the SCOTUS decision, what amendment is the argument for

allowing or not allowing warrantless searches of a cell phone?

Group of answer choices

1st, 2nd & 8th

3rd & 4th

4th & 5th

4th only

Flag question: Question 8

Question 8

3.6pts

One of the court Justices argued that allowing or not allowing a warrantless search of a cell phone may also raise what types of

other constitutional issues:

Group of answer choices

Due process

Privacy

Right to Vote

Freedom of Religion

Flag question: Question 9

Question 9

3.6pts

Which Court decided in the OMG article case?

Group of answer choices

US Supreme Court

A California Trial Court

California Supreme Court

US Court of Appeals

Flag question: Question 10

Question 10

6pts

Which of the following situations might a warrantless cell phone search be allowed?

Group of answer choices

A search after a lawful arrest

A search after an unlawful arrest

"Exigent Circumstances" would allow officers to act without a warrant when the circumstances are severe. For example, if the officers have reason to believe that they can do nothing to stop the loss of a phone's data and must search it now or never, they likely can do so.

A search within 90 hours of a lawful arrest

Flag question: Question 11

Question 11

0pts

The bonus points for this question will be updated after the closing of the assignment, and after all reflections, scores are reviewed. This question may contain multiple answers. Each correct response is + 2 extra credits. Incorrect responses will not impact your original score, but they may impact the number of bonus points received if you select too many wrong answers. So, select carefully.

Use one of the links below, or google Carpenter v. the United States regarding the " Ruling on Cellphone Location Data," tracking cellphone data, etc. This is a US Supreme Court Case dealing with Digital Privacy data on your cellphones; as a search needing a warrant or not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/politics/supreme-court-warrants-cell-phone-privacy.html(Links to an external site.)

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/22/605007387/supreme-court-rules-police-need-warrant-to-get-location-information-from-cell-to(Links to an external site.)

The below may require a subscription. If you do not one, please search for another link. You are NOT required to subscribe.

Review this article and video:

http://fortune.com/2018/06/22/supreme-court-cell-phone-warrant/(Links to an external site.)

Select all answers that apply to this case.

Group of answer choices

The Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before tracking an individual's cellphone location data over an extended period of time.

The law likely applies to all of the united states.

In 2016, a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals judge decided that cellphone location data was not protected under the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and, therefore, should not require a warrant.

Being a third party does not make your position any less deserving of Fourth Amendment protection."

The Court ruled that law enforcement must obtain a search warrant before tracking an individual's cellphone location data over an extended period of time.

The ruling was unanimous

Third parties are not protected under the Fourth Amendment.

The US Supreme Court heard this case.

The Court ruled that law enforcement does not need to obtain a search warrant before tracking an individual's cellphone location data over an extended period of time.

The ruling was 8-1

In 2018, a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals judge decided that cellphone location data was not protected under the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and, therefore, should not require a warrant.

The law applies only to the cities bordering Detroit.

The NY Supreme Court heard this case

The ruling was 8-2

The law applies only to the state of Michigan.

The ruling was a 5-4 decision

The CA Supreme Court heard this case