Written response The society that ratified the Fourth Amendment could not have imagined how it might apply to telephone technology. Did the Warren Court read the Constitution too loosely when it asserted that the constitutional protection against searches and seizures” applied to any situation that “unreasonable society today deems as Should police really need a warrant to listen “private”? to your phone conversations? How about your e-mails? Facebook status updates? Web browser history? Conversations with friends in a public park? (1968) Chimel v. California Local police officers went to Chimel's home with a warrant authorizing his arrest for burglary. Upon serving him with the arrest warrant, the officers conducted a comprehensive search without a search warrant of Chimel's entire residence. – – The search uncovered a number of items that were later used to convict Chimel. State courts upheld the conviction. Constitutional question: Did the warrantless search of Chimel's home violate the Fourth Amendment? Conclusion: Yes. The Court held that the search of Chimel's house was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. While the Court asserted the right of police officers to search an arrestee and the surrounding area, it reasoned that these searches to arrest” are limited to the area within “incident
Written response The society that ratified the Fourth Amendment could not have imagined how it might apply to telephone technology. Did the Warren Court read the Constitution too loosely when it asserted that the constitutional protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures” applied to any situation that society today deems as “private”? Should police really need a warrant to listen to your phone conversations? How about your e-mails? Facebook status updates? Web browser history? Conversations with friends in a public park? Chimel v. California (1968) Local police officers went to Chimel's home with a warrant authorizing his arrest for burglary. Upon serving him with the arrest warrant, the officers conducted a comprehensive search – without a search warrant – of Chimel's entire residence. The search uncovered a number of items that were later used to convict Chimel. State courts upheld the conviction. Constitutional question: Did the warrantless search of Chimel's home violate the Fourth Amendment? Conclusion: Yes. The Court held that the search of Chimel's house was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. While the Court asserted the right of police officers to search an arrestee and the surrounding area, it reasoned that these searches “incident to arrest” are limited to the area within
AG_U8_Due_Process_Warren.docx