Constitutional Restrictions On Civil Privacy And Police Search Right

"Even the poorest man dared to defy the king's authornty in his hut.The house may be dilapidated,the roof rickety;The wind may blow in,and the rain may beat in,but the king cannot go in,and his armies dare not cross the threshold of this wretched house.The relationship between individual rights and state power has been profoundly revealed by the old legal proverb"wind can enter,rain can enter,but the king cannot".A warrant is required for a house search not only because it provides us with a safe and comfortable living environment and space,but also because the privacy stored in the house is about all aspects of our lives,which makes us independent from the society and other people.In recent years,with the development of science and technology,electronic products represented by mobile phones have carried a large amount of information about our life and work.With the increasing demand,mobile phones have become more and more rich in functions:travel can be taken by mobile phone,consumption can be paid by mobile phone,bank bills and even tax information can be easily accessed on mobile phone.The extensive use of mobile phones,the rich and perfect nature and functions of mobile phones,make mobile phones can not be simply treated as carry-on items.Since the functions of mobile phones are similar to or even far more than that of residential buildings,the due process for searching mobile phones can only be general or more strict than that for residential buildings,so as to better protect citizens'privacy rights from the arbitrary infringement of the public power of the state.Therefore,when the public authornty searches the mobile phone by coercive means,can the mobile phone still be used as a personal object for random search?The Supreme Court justices said no:a warrant is required to search a cell phone.It is also because mobile phones are easy to carry,easily as the police carry items and arbitrary search.However,citizens'right of privacy is often weak in the face of the public power of the state.If the strong public power of the government is not exercised arbitrarily according to the due process,it will infringe individual rights extremely.That is why the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that mobile phones cannot be searched at will,and that even a search should result in a warrant.It should be noted that mobile phone searches are not completely prohibited,only that they should be conducted with due process to prevent abuse of police power.This paper is divided into five parts.The first part is the introduction of the reasons for the judgment of Wurie's case.It mainly introduces the majority view and the opposition view,and evaluates the judgment view.The second part is the consideration factors of court decisions in the longitudinal comparison.The first aspect is the search warrant.It introduces the principle of search warrant and the restriction on mobile phone search,which is the embodiment of the proper exercise of the police's search right.Only when the police's search right is properly exercised,can they better investigate crimes while protecting citizens' privacy rights.The second aspect is the scope of incidental search.The comparison between the scope of incidental search and the mobile phone search shows that the two aspects of the Chimel rule are not applicable when the police conduct mobile phone search,that is,the police do not properly exercise the right to search.The third aspect is the incidental search of the arrested person.By comparing the principle established in Robinson case with the mobile phone search,it further illustrates the improper exercise of the police's search right.The fourth aspect is the considerations of court decisions in vertical comparison.The comparison between the three cases and the mobile phone search shows that the main consideration factor of the court's judgment is whether the police exercise their power properly.The third part is the restriction of police search itself in the evolution of privacy right.Among them,the first is the protection of property rights,which shows that the disregard for the search itself makes civil rights more vulnerable to infringement.The second aspect is the protection of privacy rights.Through the introduction of the case of katz and the drawbacks of the legal privacy interest rules,it shows the importance of regulating the proper exercise of police power and the legal restrictions on it.The third aspect is the restriction on the police search itself.The fourth part is the constitutional constraint on the police's search power in the mobile phone search.The first part introduces the protection of privacy information in mobile phone search,and explains the importance of privacy protection in mobile phone from the functions of location,information storage and account,indicating that it is the key to standardize the proper exercise of police search right.The second aspect is the constitutional restriction on the proper exercise of the police power.The last part is the conclusion.