Question

Agents who were investigating six armed robberies in Maryland received from the court an order giving them access to 221 days of Sprint/Nextel records showing where the defendants’ phones were. To get it, the agents had to show the requested records were relevant and material to the continuing investigation. The defendants challenged their convictions, claiming the agents should have obtained a warrant. A warrant would require a higher standard for the agents to meet, that there was a fair probability that the records sought would lead to evidence of a crime. Should a warrant have been obtained? Explain why.

Answer 1

NO is such cased warrant would not be requires as they are investigating a case of robbery . Robbery is hineous crme and people who are a part of probable cause as per the fourth amendment of the US Constitution , can be searched without warrant . The law says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be searched."

Probable cause help investigators work smoothly on their projects with out wasting time on the crime investigation for obtaining warrant .