Following the events of September 14, 2017, Casey Davidson’s fourth amendment rights were intruded upon when the police obtained GPS location data recorded involuntarily by Davidson’s vehicle. In the case at bar, Detective Carroll obtained records of Casey Davidson’s whereabouts without a warrant in violation of Davidson’s fourth amendment rights, so the information regarding Davidson’s location in the days leading up to September 14 is inadmissible at this trial. In the case of Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court established that a fourth amendment search is any intrusion into something in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. It is reasonable that Casey Davidson would have an expectation of privacy regarding his whereabouts because Americans have a right to be secure in their persons and effects. The case of United States v. Jones demonstrates that police must obtain a warrant in order to track a suspect’s car through GPS, and that a vehicle qualifies as …show more content…
California, the supreme court unanimously ruled that police must obtain a warrant in order to access digital information on a phone collected incident to arrest. The court decided that searches of digital information may require a warrant if there are significant privacy related concerns. The foundation of this ruling was that, traditionally, searches were limited by physical realities and thus constituted only a limited intrusion on privacy. The court established that if a search exposes more than an extensive search of a house, a warrant is generally required. In the case at bar, Davidson’s GPS information revealed private information that would have been traditionally unavailable. The collection of this information constitutes a significant invasion upon Davidson’s privacy, and is certainly a greater burden on privacy than an extensive search of a house. Therefore, the collection of Davidson’s location information should have required a fourth amendment