PennTags Feed for /tag/fourth_amendment

The iPhone Meets the Fourth Amendment

Gershowitz, Adam. "The iPhone Meets the Fourth Amendment." UCLA Law Review. Vol. 56 (2008) 27-58.

The iPhone Meets the Fourth Amendment

Gershowitz, Adam. "The iPhone Meets the Fourth Amendment." UCLA Law Review. Vol. 56 (2008) 27-58.

Gershowitz's article interprets the role that the iPhone plays in our understanding of the Fourth Amendment. This article from the UCLA Law School Journal emphasizes that under the current provisions of the Fourth Ammendment, a police officer can search the entire body and grabbing space of an arrestee without probable cause. In this past, this might have seemed trivial; however, the iPhone has made this a pressing issue because it allows the contents and applications to be searched. The first part of the article offers history and background related to this exemption from the Fourth Amendment. Next, the author reflects on previous cases that have dealt with searches of cell phones and how this doctrine is complicated by the iPhone. It becomes clear that applications such as the iPhoto one differentiate the iPhone from its predecessors. Finally, Gershowitz offers suggestions to courts and lawmakers for policies that they might adopt to secure greater protection for iPhones.

This article interestingly acknowledges a possible negative side effect of the iPhone's mobility and accessibility. One would be inclined to believe that having all of our resources and personal information just a click away at all times would be beneficial. However, as this article reveals, this is not necessarily always the case. Users must realize that having all of their personal information, e-mails, private data and more could possibly hurt them. The quick link to the internet via the wed applications could release incriminating information in some cases. For instance, an officer could search the web browser or photos of an iPhone user and find child pornography. This document is yet another reminder of the fact that the information stored within our technological devices is never truly private. Additionally, this text speaks to the fact that the law has not been able to keep up with developments in technology. With respect to privacy and copyright especially, technological developments like the iPhone are forcing lawmakers to reassess the application of policies to these devices.

Shaul v Cherry Valley School District

Shaul v Cherry Valley-Springfield School District et al. 363 F.3d 177; 2004 U.S. App.

This case was filed by William Shaul against his former employer accusing them of illegally confiscating his personal property from his classroom. Shaul was fired from his position as a teacher in the high school. He was given permission to return to his office and classroom to remove his personal effects. However he said that he wasn’t given enough time to get everything. When he went back to get more he was not allowed in and when he tried to get the district to surrender his remaining effects he was not given them. Shaul says that because the school didn’t give him enough time to remove his personal items they violated his fourth amendment rights to reasonable search and seizure. Among the items he claimed were various photos and also his class notes and quizzes, which he claimed to own based upon the academic exception. The court found in favor of the school district saying that in general enough time was given for him to remove his belongings. And specifically they addressed his class notes saying that because he was not the author of the quizzes and that class notes were created directly from him performing his job they were the property of the school district under the work for hire clause.

This case while only tangentially dealing with the academic exception does address the issue of whether Allentown High School took the score from Mauro's possession without his permission in Mauro v Allentown. There are a few extenuating circumstances such as whether or not Mauro gave the sheet music to the students prior to his removal from his position. And also the fact that Mauro was told not to remove any music when he was allowed to remove his personal belongings from his classroom could be a factor in the decision, however this is a remarkably similar case in which the school was the winner.