Have you ever sent a text message that revealed your mostintimate of thoughts and emotions?  Text messages areoften raw, unvarnished, and immediate, not to mention can be takencompletely out of context. However, we send them to those who areexpected to guard them from publication.
The status of text messages in criminal investigations remainsunsettled in the US. Is it reasonable for people to expect thecontents of their electronic text messages to remain private,especially from law enforcement? Do we have a right to privacy fortext message conversations? Even the United States Supreme Courthas struggled with the legal challenges raised by emergingtechnology, most especially in the realm of cellular phones andtheir contents.
Situation 1
David Leon Riley was arrested on August 22, 2009, after atraffic stop resulted in the discovery of loaded firearms in hiscar. The officers took Riley's phone, and searched through hismessages, contacts, videos, and photographs. Based in part on thedata stored on Riley's phone, the officers charged him with anunrelated shooting that had taken place several weeks prior to hisarrest.
Situation 2
Gregory Diaz, was arrested for the sale of the illicit drugecstasy and his cell phone, containing incriminating evidence, wasseized and searched without a warrant. In trial court proceedings,Diaz motioned to suppress the information obtained from his cellphone, which was denied   on the grounds that thesearch of his cell phone was incident to a lawful arrest.
Situation 3
At 6:08am, on October 4, 2009, Trisha Oliver frantically called911 from her apartment in Cranston, Rhode Island when hersix-year-old son, Marco Nieves, stopped breathing. The FireDepartment took Marco to Hasbro Children's Hospital, where he wasfound to be in full cardiac arrest. He died 11 hours later.
By 6:20am, Sgt. Michael Kite of the Cranston Police Departmenthad arrived at the apartment, where he found Oliver, her boyfriendMichael Patino, and their 14-month-old daughter, Jazlyn Oliver.Kite observed a couple of stripped beds  and linens onthe floor, a trash can with vomit inside it, dark brown vomit in atoilet, and, crucially, a cell phone on the kitchen. Kite picked upthe cell phone.
Kite viewed a text message on the phone, which was owned byTrisha Oliver, reading \"Wat if I got 2 take him 2 da hospital watdo I say and dos marks on his neck omg.\" The message was sent fromOliver to Patino, although the sending of the message apparentlyfailed. There were other messages on the phone \"with profanelanguage and references to punching Marco—three times—the hardestof which was in the stomach,\" according to court records. Patinowas then arrested and charged with murder. He later confessed tothe death of Marco Nieves.
Sgt. Kite claims he picked up the phone because it was\"beeping,\" and that he thought it might help get in touch with theboy's birth father.
Patino's attorney argues to exclude the State‘s core evidencefrom being used at trial, which is the text messages. He wants anyother evidence steaming from it such as all cell phones and theircontents, all cell phone records, and critical portions of theDefendant‘s videotaped statement and his written statement given tothe police suppressed as well. The attorney claims, the cell phonesearches were \"illegal as warrantless or in excess of the warrantsobtained,\" and \"As such, all of these searches and seizures,therefore, were unreasonable in violation of the FourthAmendment,\"
I realized the information I presented is limited...What do youthink about the cases in general? Do you think that Riley or Diazhad an expectation of privacy? Do you think that Patino and Oliverhad an expectation of privacy, since the phone was on the kitchencounter in their apartment? Would it make a difference if the phonewas found outside in the grass? Do you think the police violatedtheir fourth amendment rights? Should the police have secured asearch warrant before looking in the phone in any of thesesituations? How should the judge handle these cases? Keep in mindthat these ruling are used for the basis of future decisions by thecourts. Should digital contents of a cell phone be categorized as awarrantless search? Do you think these situations are differentfrom each other or should they all be handled the same?
