Supreme Court Decision - Essay Example

of the Political Science of the Teacher 14 July Doe v. of Intrusia- Supreme Court Decision As per the wisdom and informed opinion of this Court of Law, the City of Intrusia no way violated the search and seizure protections enshrined in the Fourth Amendment by intercepting the text messages of the accused Joe Doe, and these text messages are aptly admissible in this Court as valid and credible evidence. This Court has ample reasons to set aside the appeal made by the accused, Joe Doe. The Fourth Amendment in its word and spirit intends to protect “The right of the people to be secure”, in the condition that they are subjected to “unreasonable searches”.

The evidence culled through these text messages intercepted by the police, when considered, does establish beyond any doubt that the accused was indeed engaging in unreasonable activities, which jeopardized the lives of the innocent citizens. Thereby the initiation of the interception of the text messages of the accused by the police, considering the fact that the police was under an immense pressure to act in time, to avoid any further loss of life of the innocent citizens, was no way unreasonable.

This act of the police when seen in the larger context seems totally reasonable. It does need to be mentioned that the “trespass doctrine” facilitated by Olmstead v. United States (1928) if applied to the situation under consideration, validate the interception of Doe’s text messages by the police without invoking any violation of the Fourth Amendment Rights, as the police while doing so no way violated the essential dignity of the accused as a human and as a citizen. Besides, the two pronged test propounded in Katz v.

United States (1967), when applied to the issue under consideration does nullify the appeal made by the accused. While exchanging the text messages associated with his illegal activities, the accused was no way exhibiting an expectation of privacy as he was well aware that he was exchanging these text messages with the intention to facilitate his unlawful activities, and thereby, through the exercise of commonsense, was well aware that such messages and communications would attract the well deserved attention of the law and order machinery.

Doe was well aware that he was relying for the exchange of these text messages on the services sold by the local cell phone carrier, and in the light of United States v. Miller (1975), Doe’s rights were not infringed upon if the company as a third party, entrusted his text messages to the police, guided by the belief that it was its legal and constitutional duty to help the police. Besides, if the Court gives credence to the larger social conscience, Doe as a citizen could have easily deduced that the society would no way consider his expectations of privacy pertaining to the communications associated with his illegal activities to be ‘reasonable’, as required by Katz, more so when the police was acting under the urgency of saving any further loss of life.

Hence, the appeal placed by Doe is set aside by the Court.