Running head: US SUPREME COURT 1

Recent Trends in US Supreme Court Search and Seizure Decisions

Brandy Mingus

Upper Iowa University

Criminal Law & Procedure

28 Nov 2023
US SUPREME COURT 2

Abstract

The contemporary decisions about search and seizure by the American Supreme Court reveal an

increasingly complicated process of interpreting constitutional laws regarding the Fourth

Amendment that holds a tightrope balance between individual freedoms and police power. The

paper touches on past events, notable examples, and developing electronic privacy problems. For

example, it is possible to highlight a case like Carpenter vs. In its 2018 report, the United States,

among other considerations, considers “reasonable expectation of privacy,” a basic right in

today’s digital age. The tougher warrant demands for digital searches are based on a complex

intertwining of legal principles and public perception. The opposition issues relating to police

effectiveness and its implications. In a nutshell, this analysis wades through complex judicial

precedents surrounding the Fourth Amendment and understanding that the court is always pliable

to account for emerging issues while at the same time not losing track of heated debate over

balances between societal safety and citizens’ rights.

US SUPREME COURT 3

Recent Trends in US Supreme Court Search and Seizure Decisions

Search and seizure represent one of the pillars of the complex American legal system.

The issue of search and seizure stands as a cornerstone within the complicated structure of

American law systems. In the middle of all that legal discourse is the Fourth Amendment, which

can be described as the cornerstone of constitutionally crafted balance (Carthew, 2019). This part

of the constitution is central in combining the needs of policing in the interests of ensuring

security and protection of personal freedom. This paper looks at some current developments with

regard to decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court pertaining to search and seizure and tries to

explain its far-reaching consequences with respect to individual freedoms and criminal

investigation operations. Therefore, this paper tries to examine how the court has interpreted the

Fourth Amendment in the contemporary era as a way of finding out intricacies associated with

the interaction between legal principles, community standards, and computer technologies. The

purpose of this study is to thoroughly examine the intricate connection between the right to

privacy and law enforcement’s demands.

The evolution of search and seizure law in the US is nothing but an interesting story of

the interplay between different legal theories, social norms, and important judiciary cases. The

search and seizure principle developed from the root of English as a common law tradition that

eventually became embedded in American jurisprudence with the formulation of the Fourth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, along with the growing stature came

difficulties relating to people’s rights and those who have the oversight powers to rule them.

Weeks vs. Two landmark twentieth-century cases in the US include the US (1914) and Mapp v.
US SUPREME COURT 4

Ohio (1961) that influenced jurisprudence development (Cloud, 2021). The exclusionary rule

was developed by Weeks and is applied in federal cases. Mapp extended this to include cases

involving state prosecution.

This happened in the middle of the 20th century, and the “reasonable expectation of

privacy” standard was created by the Supreme Court in Katz vs. United States (1967) (Carthew,

2019). This was also a case of one’s rights to private space and expectations in public buildings

like airports. United States vs. Cases like Jones vs. US (2012), which involved GPS tracking, and

Carpenter vs. US (2018), with respect to mobile positioning technology, are evidence that

Supreme Court understands the need for adapting Fourth Amendment jurisprudence as

highlighted by It is also necessary to have an understanding on the historical perspective since it

enables one to recognize the significance of the precedent set today in searches and seizures.

The last few years have seen the United States Supreme Court lead the way in redefining

the delicacy of private rights against searches and seizures. Decisions in Riley vs. California and

Carpenter vs. United States have strongly influenced the legal environment regarding searches

and seizures (Kelley, 2020; Hemmens & Gieri, 2019). In Riley’s case, the Court observed this is

necessary given the digital age we are living in. Fourth, carpenter Amendment protection on

cellular location was termed as an extension of private zones. This shows that the Supreme Court

is serious about the protection of everyone’s right to privacy.

Digital Privacy: Maintaining “Reasonable expectation of privacy”

Modern events that illustrate the increased focus on law enforcement undertakings, such

as electronic search and electronic tracking, are exemplified by Carpenter V. United States

(U.S.), 2018. One of the famous cases where the Supreme Court included that cellphone location
US SUPREME COURT 5

as constituting privacy was this. Another instance is where evidence obtained through a

polygraph or other none scientific process could be admitted in court and even considered by the

United States Supreme Court. Five judges formed the majority court and ruled against Carpenter;

however, one among the three concurring judges gave a dissent. There was a majority opinion

that said that given the modern technological development, they created considerable privacy

interest and thus constituted such a reasonable expectation. Therefore, some novelty was

developed such that people were able to exchange information outside company secrets, which

were confidential at times, in relation to Carpenter vs. In understanding people’s grievances, the

USA (2018) highlights how this Court handles technology using constitutional frameworks

(Hemmens & Gieri, 2019). This proves that such inclination is likely to become prevalent since

technology should not stand in people’s way but protect them instead.

The search warrant validity issue in contemporary digital searches has become too strict,

as determined by the Supreme Court lately. The case of United States v Jones showed how GPS

tracking has evolved in law enforcement (Silva, 2020). It meant the highly sensitive balance of

interests between police and freedom issues in the privacy area. Therefore, this implies

preventing an individual’s information from the new threats of technological invasions. In

regards to search warrants in the digital age, courts have also highlighted further that these

specific constitutional protections are essential for balancing an individual’s privacy right against

public concerns pertaining to law enforcement.

To date, dissenting views such as Judge Thomas’s opinion in Maryland versus King

(2013) still question whether police could conflict with people’s rights. However, in his dissent,
US SUPREME COURT 6

Justice Thomas remarked upon many problems that confront such police trying to detect or

prevent crime. As such, they are reduced to minor players who form part of the discussion on

privacy vs police powers. The fact that they have such different points clearly shows that despite

the arguments regarding equity, protection, and a police officer’s capacity to maintain order,

none of them are settled yet.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as one part of the Bill of Rights, was

adopted in 1791. It is certainly one of the fundamental measures that continue to be employed for

the avoidance of unreasonable search and seizure. Arising out of the context of colonial

oppression, this clause provides an imperative right for every person to reside in their body,

house, documents, and things without any justified interference on the part, summarizing as

follows, “The right of the people to have peace on themselves, However, the Fourth Amendment

is embedded in historical background and thus remains an effective protection against possible

tyranny on behalf of police institutions. The expectation of privacy has been profoundly

impacted by cases like Katz v. United States in 1967 (Carthew, 2019). Katz expanded the

interpretation of the Fourth Amendment to include a constitutionally protected privacy interest

against general intrusion into one’s “being left alone.”

Fourth Amendment is considered a living Constitution, and it has proven that it adapts

not just to shifting technology but to changing society, too. It is this particular law that forms a

formidable barrier on the part of modern society, where it takes place through new sophisticated

technologies. Nonetheless, issues connected with court-directed wiretapping, computer searches,

and the scope of the 4th Amendment in cyberspace still abound. As society goes through legal

changes and cultural transformations geared towards preventing privacy abuse, the fundamental
US SUPREME COURT 7

elements of the Fourth Amendment still hold. It is a very crucial means of controlling state

authority so as to have individual freedom and peace of mind against breach of privacy.

Therefore, the importance of the Fourth Amendment is that it is flexible enough to maintain

citizens’ privacy as technology grows and as societal norms change while balancing legal

requirements.

In a recent case of Caniglia v. United States, the Supreme Court complexly showed how

important and relevant the Fourth Amendment is, even today. Strom in 2021. In its decision, the

court set limits of community care and considered reasons with the fourth Amendment

(Bartucca, 2023). It stressed caution in overall civil matters. This is an attempt by the Supreme

Court to be updated and in tandem with modern constitutional principles. Thus, it shows the

evolution of court jurisdiction as technological advancement requires the court to find a balance

between the two parties – the right to privacy vs. law enforcement under the Fourth Amendment.

Some recent Supreme Courts have seen varied opinions regarding their search and

seizure-related issues. Consequently, there are great fights, quarrels, and litigations in most

courts of law as well as among the people of the country. The last one is the question of reducing

effectiveness within the police services. Critics have also noted that the courts lay so much

emphasis on warrants and yet question whether this will only delay the law enforcement

response to evolving crimes that are technology-supported today. This challenge can be curtailed

by adopting increased privacy protection that bars some investigations, as noted by Judge Alito

in the Carpenter dissent opinion (Hemmens & George, 2019). On the other hand, those arguing

in support of these court's judgments assert that they represent a balance between the privacy
US SUPREME COURT 8

concerns of individuals and the intrusive nature of the investigation carried out by the police

officers.

The "expectation of privacy" dictum espoused by the Court in Katz v. United States

(1967) is criticized for protecting people's rights to privacy in a complex world (Carthew, 2019).

The idea associated with this view of the Court has been formulated so as to avoid the unjust

interference of the state authorities and reflects contemporary views on privacy. The most recent

decisions involving search and seizure under modern conditions have received much public

debate. Additionally, disputes revolve around what kind of information should be exempt under

the "third-party doctrine". Nonetheless, some critics assert that this notion is outdated and no

longer significant in the era of digital sharing ambiance.

These would have a bearing on how agencies conduct operations like searches and

seizures, so they cannot be dismissed as minor problems. Such decisions show how seriously the

issue of individual privacy rights is taken today with implications for policing practices. Notable

effects include necessitating scrutiny by law-enforcement agencies on procedures they use to

secure digital searches and other searches. Recent cases of warrants have seen courts becoming

more stringent on warrant requirements, as evidenced by United States v. Jones (2012) and

Carpenter (Silva, 2020). In the present condition, where police have been playing narrow rope

for a long, the company should refrain from playing over a wider rope that will make it difficult

for police to operate where they have always worked.

Regarding the electronic privacy case Riley versus. In California (2014), police agencies

should operate in accordance with the Constitution. For instance, cellphone search warrants

highlight the fact that such a strategy might no longer work in the age of modern technology as it
US SUPREME COURT 9

keeps becoming more complex, requiring appropriate legal procedures (Kelley, 2020).

Furthermore, changing court orders requires constant police training due to their familiarization

with search and seizure laws. Law enforcement should be extremely careful in exercising the

right of their clients’ “reasonable expectation of privacy” while operating in a digital

environment. However, law enforcement agencies must adhere to new provisions, including

court-mandated activities like community caretaking under US vs. Caniglia v. Strom (2021)

(Bartuccia, 2023). Besides, police act gently towards the emerging exceptions of the warrant

provisions so that citizens’ rights are protected as well as people's security.

Implications for Individual Rights

The contemporary instances of search and seizure, largely those aimed at violating

privacy, particularly digital privacy, influence his constitutional right but somewhat support the

Fourth Amendment. According to Carpenter V. United States (2018), the Court must maintain

the right to informational privacy and stop any invasive technology. This underscores an

important consequence with regard to internet security, focusing on issues of privacy (Nelson &

Gibson, 2019). This expectation arises out of the same principle, which led to the establishment

of the privacy expectations that have been held against Carpenter. This Court has made it clear

that there is an important change in how it perceives the contemporary and more sensitive means

of communication. For example, Riley v. California (2014) indicates that the problems

associated with modern technology are becoming increasingly clear. It has thus been established

that extensive amounts of personal information may be stored on the electronic platform since

mobile phone searches are carried out only upon warrants having been issued. Therefore, the

Fourth Amendment proscribes all searches and seizures not based on lawful grounds. This has

resulted in a number of fears, and Justice Alito addressed some of them in his dissenting opinion
US SUPREME COURT 10

in Carpenter (Hemmenes & Gieri, 2019). Critics claim that introducing heavier security

measures might hinder investigations, particularly in an evolving cyber environment. This debate

era is characterized by high technology, where it has always been a disputable matter concerning

balancing something that should be provided for police officers but, on the other hand,

constitutional guarantee boundaries. However, this should be carefully done in order to protect

citizen’s rights but with a tough stand against those who perpetrate crimes.

Conclusion

Modern technological innovations are giving a fresh interpretation to the Fourth

Amendment. In this case, it is clear that the Court wants to uphold citizens’ freedoms, and hence,

it maintains them as they would have been before Carpenter V. United States (2018). Such case

development is crucial from the perspective of reassessment of methods relevant to the issue of

seeking out warrant searches online. The Court should, however, know what is now called a

reasonable expectation of privacy in cyberspace. This is beyond discussing the claims that there

is no balance in police needs versus civil liberties rights when the same is done while laying

down the law of search and seizure as technology becomes more.

US SUPREME COURT 11

References

Bartucca, A. (2023). Constitutional Law-Constitutionality of Police Caretaking Conduct inside

the Home-Caniglia v. Strom, 141 S. Ct. 1596 (2021). Suffolk J. Trial & App. Advoc., 28,

129. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/

sujoriapv28&section=11

Carthew, A. (2019). Searches and Seizures- Fourth Amendment and Reasonableness in General:

Protection of Privacy Interests in the Digital Age. NDL Rev., 94, 197.

https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/

nordak94&section=10

Cloud, M. (2021). Mapp v. Ohio, the Exclusionary Rule, and Constitutional Judicial Review.

In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History.

https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001

/acrefore-9780199329175-e-683

Hemmens, C., & Gieri, B. (2019). Recent legal developments: Criminal justice decisions of the

US Supreme Court, 2017 term. Criminal Justice Review, 44(2), 231-243.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0734016819835913

Kelley, A. L. (2020). Border Searches in a Digital Age: Finding Alignment Amidst a Diluted

Right. Florida Law Review, 71(Forum), 182-211.

https://www.floridalawreview.com/article/88703.pdf

Nelson, M. J., & Gibson, J. L. (2019). How does hyperpoliticized rhetoric affect the US Supreme

Court’s legitimacy? The Journal of Politics, 81(4), 1512-1516.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/704701
US SUPREME COURT 12

Silva, J. F. (2020). Reasonable Expectations of Privacy in the Digital Age. Seton Hall Legis.

J., 44, 607. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/

sethlegj44&section=25