The legal issue of consent is quite an interesting topic for discussion. The main aspect of this concept is consent, which plays an important role in this process. To study this aspect, the Georgia vs case can be applied. Randolph, which affects the seizure of evidence without approval from the suspect. This work also explores what exceptions, in addition to the absence of a concent from a search warrant, can be applied to computers or other high-tech evidence.
Before proceeding to the consideration of cases related to digital information, it is necessary to understand what Georgia v. Rudolf case is. The accused was accused by his wife of using narcotic substances and the woman promised to provide evidence of the accusations that were in their common house. However, if the spouse consented to the search of the property, the man refused and resisted him. Thus, the police got access to the necessary evidence, which was later collected after receiving the order and the husband was accused of cocaine possession. However, the court ruled that since the wife had no recognized authority in the law to give consent, she gave the police no more grounds for justifying entry than they would have had in the absence of any consent at all. Thus, there was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the compensation claims of the state were not summed up to outweigh it.
The Fourth Amendment, which is the central legislative concept in this case, prohibits unreasonable searches and detentions. Moreover, it implies the issuance of search warrants only if they are issued by a court with sufficient grounds. However, research shows that “the Supreme Court has never explained what makes an expectation of privacy reasonable, and scholars regularly complain that this standard is incomprehensible and unworkable” (Tokson, 2020, p. 1). Therefore, if we apply this aspect to Internet technologies and electronic information of a person, the police cannot obtain this information without the direct consent of the accused. This also applies to the fact that the security authorities cannot follow the consent of the roommates or neighbors, since these proofs are not their personal property.
Moreover, thus, it can be concluded that the seizure of evidence is lawful with the permission of one person, when another, who will try to hide them and at the same time is present at the scene and clearly refuses to give consent illegally. The Fourth Amendment supports the fact of unauthorized actions for the uncoordinated acquisition of digital information and without a court order with the necessary amount of substantiated evidence.
Therefore, using the case of Georgia v. Rudolph (2006) as an example, it can be concluded that law enforcement agencies, with assistance, can seize the necessary evidence on electronic media without consequences for the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment gives people the right to be secure in their houses and papers (Garrett & Stoughton, 2017). This is an inherent right that balances the governments need to investigate criminal activity while preventing unnecessary and unwarranted police intrusions. However, it is a limited right and is not applied to all searches and seizures. Furthermore, it is a personal right and can be claimed only by the person who is the subject of the search.
On the other hand, the amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and considers many circumstances at the same time. An example would be the case United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez as a reasonable justification for the search, a set of circumstances were given and the assistance and cooperation of foreign agents was emphasized (Bailey, 2018). The Fourth Amendment in this instance did not have its force in relation to the search of property belonging to a non-resident alien and located in another country. An exception in the absence of content may be the assumption by law enforcement agencies of the validity and evidence of their actions in accordance with the appropriate authority.
Another exception is the example when the electronic source of the necessary evidence has several hosts. Thus, if there is a password to the technology, a third party can consent to the data search. An example of such a case was the investigation of the United States v. Smith (1999). Thus, it is possible to circumvent consent, but this case can still be refuted by the court as a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Electronic high-tech technologies store a huge amount of information about their users. Thus, in relation to the Fourth Amendment and applying it to electronic devices, consent is required, which prevents the acquisition of evidence. Moreover, this amendment allows law enforcement agencies to conduct searches to seize documents during criminal investigations and enables judges to issue warrants authorizing police to confiscate suspects’ digital devices. The main condition in this case is a detailed indication of the places to be searched and the items to be seized. Nevertheless, this factor can be bypassed if the electronic carrier has several users who have the necessary password.