Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

Instructions/Descriptions

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

[Order Now]

After following the instructional sequence, which includes reading the required chapters and the unit lesson, please discuss the legal issues in Riley v. California, and assess how you believe the decision in Riley v. California could influence police policy and procedure.

REPLY TO MY CLASSMATE’S RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS AND EXPLAIN WHY YOU AGREE? (A MINIMUM OF 100 WORDS or MORE)

[Order Now]

CLASSMATE’S POST

There is an endless variety of inconsistent rulings related to the Fourth Amendment and privacy.

There are implications from the latest ruling in Riley v. California (2014) related to the search and seizure of multimedia devices such as cell phones.

Law enforcement after this ruling must secure a search warrant if the information held in a cell phone is to be used in a criminal investigation.

The Harvard Law Review (2014) offered an in-depth study on the implication and past rulings related to law enforcement and searches.

The Harvard Law Review (2014) outlined several reasons why the decision seemed pro-privacy.

First, according to the article, “reasonableness” (p. 258), is a concern especially when the interest of both parties becomes divergent in priority.

This is because of the private and undefined information that may be held in a cell phone.

Secondly, the justification to search for private information and go beyond law enforcement need as a justification for the search.

The process must encompass the whole population, not a segment of society prone to violating laws.

Third, aside from ruling related to the use of, “DNA” (p. 259) for the identification of criminals involved in serious crimes, there is no middle group to allow for such searches without judicial approval.

[Order Now]

The reasonableness clause has to do with the interest of the state verse those of personal privacy.

For example, Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders (2012) had to do with bodily searches in criminal institutions.

The ruling, according to the Harvard Law Review (2014), suggested although there is an intrusion of privacy (personal interest) in this case, it is a reasonable alternative to keep institutions staff and prisoners safe (government interest). The bottom line here is no searches of cell phones without a search warrant.

References

The Harvard Law Review. (2014). Riley v. California. The Harvard Law Review, 128, 251-260. Retrieved from https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/riley_v_california.pdf

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!