Cell phone owners have reasonable expectation of privacy subject to Fourth
Amendment protections that phone company’s ability to access does
not negate. “Callers have long enjoyed Fourth Amendment protection
of the information they communicate over the phone. We see no reason why
the same information communicated textually from that same device should
receive any less protection under the Fourth Amendment.” The Fourth
Amendment does not require warrant for investigative subpoena but does
require investigative subpoena to have reasonable limitations in scope
and relevance in purpose. “[T]he State issued each consecutive subpoena
because [respondent] made no admission within the time specified in the
previous subpoena. If no evidence with which to charge [respondent] had
come about, presumably the State would still be issuing subpoenas periodically
in the hope of securing something it could use against him.” Exclusionary
rule has exceptions based on police conduct but “a conscious and
considered decision made by a” prosecutor is not among them.
State of Missouri vs. James Arthur Clampitt
(Overview Summary)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD73943
Fourth Amendment protections apply to text messages
Categories: