Considering the case “Jane Doe v. the City of Instrusia”, it should be stated, first of all, that there is the law of implied consent. According to the implied consent law, to drive a vehicle on a public roadway Jane Doe agrees to follow the laws, including those forbidding driving under the influence. Moreover, Jane Doe agrees that in case of driving under the influence of any substances, and, thus, being a danger to society, the police power can be exerted over her.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people’s right to privacy securing them from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the Fourth Amendment “does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those done by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law” (Legal Information Institute). The Fourth Amendment’s protection generally applies to blood alcohol tests except if there are exigent circumstances. Thus, each case must be considered individually in order to take into account all the data. In Jane Doe’s case, the police officer decided to conduct a blood alcohol test without a court-approved warrant, as there was not sufficient time to obtain it before the natural metabolization of alcohol. The Supreme Court considers the natural metabolic processes as an exigent circumstance because it poses a threat of the evidence’s loss. Consequently, the urgency of collecting the evidence empowered the policeman to take the blood alcohol test without violating the Fourth Amendment. For instance, the same explanations were applied to Missouri v. McNeely case (Missouri v. McNeely). The latest Supreme Court affirmation of a warrantless blood alcohol test was provided in the Mitchell v. Wisconsin case in 2019 (Mitchell v. Wisconsin). The court, by a 5-4 vote, announced that people driving on a public roadway automatically consented to “having their blood drawn if police suspect them of driving under the influence” (NPR). In prior court rulings, a blood draw was considered a significant intrusion into a person’s privacy. Consequently, the Supreme Court makes the decision and gives explanations relying on the abovementioned precedents and states that the statute that authorized the blood alcohol test from an unconscious Jane Doe provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.
Concerning the search of the Jane Doe’s phone, the Supreme Court considers the policeman’s actions as unreasonable. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people from unreasonable search and seizure. The warrantless access to Jane Doe’s cellphone location data violates the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court’s decision was made based on the Carpenter v. United States case (Carpenter v. the United States). As a result of which, “The U.S. Supreme Court imposed limits on the ability of police to obtain cellphone data pinpointing the past location…” (Hurley, “Reuters”).
The reasonable expectation of privacy test (originated from Katz v. United States case) is a core element of Fourth Amendment analysis that defines whether the government’s action violated an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy (Legal Information Institute). The test of Katz can be applied to Jane Doe’s case (to the part with the warrantless search of the smartphone), as the Fourth Amendment protects people’s reasonable expectations of privacy. Doe had the legal right to expect privacy in this case. By the warrantless examination of the smartphone, the government has violated Jane Doe’s Fourth Amendment rights.
References
- “Carpenter v. Unthe cited States.” Oyez.
- “Expectation of Privacy.” Legal Information Institute. Web.
- Hurley, Lawrence. “Supreme Court Restricts Police on Cellphone Location Data.” Reuters, 2018.
- “Missouri v. McNeely.”Oyez. Web.
- “Mitchell v. Wisconsin.” Oyez. Web.
- NPR, NPR. Web.