1
Legal Considerations Associated with Cellphone Investigations
Student Name
Institutional affiliation
Course name and number
Instructor's name
Date
2
Legal Considerations Associated with Cellphone Investigations
The availability of smart devices with high-level encryption and new biometrics also
presented a significant problem to the legal profession. The organization and security of the
U. S. Constitution require investigating people's privacy rights as it turns into a legal and
ethical concern when police require aspects on phones and other mobile devices. This essay
raises these issues with an account of a recent case in the United States, an evaluation of the
relevant legal and ethical stakes, and an account of the author's opinion on the case and its
process (Milaninia, 2020).
Summary of Recent U.S. Case: United States v. Michael Cohen
An example of the legal issues of cellphone investigations is United States v. Michael
Cohen, which recently occurred. In this case, agents of the FBI searched the premises
belonging to Cohen, including an office and a hotel room. They took possession of several
electronic devices, among them mobile phones. These devices were expected to hold details
of Cohen's business transactions and his connection with U. S President Donald Trump.
Law Enforcement's Requirement to Unlock the Device
The police did not at first compel Cohen to decode the apparatus. However, the FBI
asked the court to allow the Bureau to search the devices for evidence. It allowed the court to
appoint a special master to review the seized items, excluding any privileged ones from their
suggested list of uncovered evidence for further handing over to the prosecutors. This way,
Cohen's attorney-client privileges were protected while the investigation continued (Hill-
Smith, 2019).
Legal Issues and Privacy Considerations
3
The case of United States v. Michael Cohen triggered several legal questions. These
questions involved, most importantly, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States of America. Thus, the search warrants provided to examine Cohen's devices
were not unlawful: they were based on probable cause, which is the requirement of such
warrants. On the other hand, the involvement of a special master in confiscating items
highlighted the need to respect the privilege of the accused persons and protect their rights.
Concerning decision considerations, this case also involved privacy factors. Smartphones
nowadays use encryption and biometric authentication steadily; it can be challenging to
address a warrant without the owner's consent. In Cohen's case, therefore, the approach by the
FBI of permitting a special master to go through the data and exclude items that may be
privileged from what is to be tendered in court showed that the interests of an individual's
privacy while at the same time undergoing an investigation were well balanced (Allahrakha,
2023).
Ethical Considerations
From an ethical perspective, the case brought to light the dilemma concerning the
procedures that have to be followed by police departments in the course of their work and the
right to a person's privacy. The appointment of a special master to review the seized material
demonstrated the states' adherence to ethical norms in the proceeding since the prosecution
may not use privileged communications. The above approach aided in protecting the clients
by maintaining the public's confidence in the legal system.
Personal Thoughts on the Case
4
I support the processes that occurred during the United States v. Michael Cohen case
and the final result. The extent to which a special master was used to oversee the seized
materials was the right call as it ensured that investigations went through without a breach of
privacy and that attorney-client privileges were infringed on. This way, the collection of
evidence was done fairly and ethically, which is vital for the bolstering of support from the
public towards the legal system.
Constitutionality of the Court's Requests
All these requests of the court were constitutional. Thus, the search warrants have
been issued under probable cause to meet the Fourth Amendment standards. Furthermore, the
special master provision appointed to go through the confiscated materials safeguarded
Cohen's rights and enabled the investigations. This endorsement showed an adherence to
constitutional provisions, mainly in combating the consequences of information technology.
What I Would Have Done Differently
Even though this case was managed correctly, the possible improvement could have
been enhancing the public relations or lack thereof for the special master's review. The public
might have benefitted from additional information regarding how information privileged by
law was discovered and how the same was shielded from access by unauthorized persons.
Consequently, perhaps allowing Cohen and his legal advisors another chance to scrutinize the
special master's report before the data was delivered to the prosecutors might have also
enhanced the protection of Cohen's rights.
Conclusion
However, it can be concluded that the case of United States v. Michael Cohen paints
the right picture regarding cellphone investigations regarding legal and ethical concerns. The
measures taken in this case, especially the appointment of a special master, helped to achieve
the objectives of policing without infringing on the constitutional privacy of individuals.
5
Despite some aspects that could be modified to enhance the level of transparency, the
conduct of the case can be considered adequate and non-biased, which can help determine
similar cases involving highly developed smartphone technologies.
6
Reference
Allahrakha, N. (2023). Balancing cyber-security and privacy: legal and ethical considerations
in the digital age.8Legal Issues in the digital Age, (2), 78-121.
Hill-Smith, M. (2019). Smartphone encryption: A legal framework for law enforcement to
survive the" going dark" phenomenon.8Auckland UL Rev.,825, 173.
Milaninia, N. (2020). Using Mobile Phone Data to Investigate Mass Atrocities and the
Human Rights Considerations.8UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign
Affairs,824(2), 273-316.
