In 2014, in a unanimous ruling delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court concluded that the police may not search a cell phone without first demonstrating probable cause. Citing an obvious Fourth Amendment interest--namely, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure--in the vast amount of data we store on our personal devices, the Court wrote: ``The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple--get a warrant.'' With that decision, the Court took a bold step toward reconciling the Fourth Amendment with the advent of modern communications technology. Today the House takes a similar step to reconcile our interests in privacy and due process with the realities of modern computing. We do so for the second time. H.R. 387, the Email Privacy Act, recognizes that the content of our communications, although often stored in digital format, remains worthy of Fourth Amendment protection. And to investigators and government agents who seek access to our email, our advice is rather simple: get a warrant. It is an idea whose time has long since come.…
Share & report
More from John Conyers
I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan will be postponed. Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia The Acting…
Within hours of taking the oath as President of the United States, Donald Trump signaled that his much touted ``New Deal for Black America'' is just the same ``old deal'' of discrimination, voter suppression and establishment entitlement…
Members of the House, this is a very serious matter. This rule, and I have to emphasize this, does not run afoul of the Second Amendment. You can oppose this--well, let's put it like this: The Heller Court, in the Supreme Court case, said…
I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).





