The evidence culled through these text messages intercepted by the police, when considered, does establish beyond any doubt that the accused was indeed engaging in unreasonable activities, which jeopardized the lives of the innocent citizens. Thereby the initiation of the interception of the text messages of the accused by the police, considering the fact that the police was under an immense pressure to act in time, to avoid any further loss of life of the innocent citizens, was no way unreasonable. This act of the police when seen in the larger context seems totally reasonable. It does need to be mentioned that the “trespass doctrine” facilitated by Olmstead v. United States (1928) if applied to the situation under consideration, validate the interception of Doe’s text messages by the police without invoking any violation of the Fourth Amendment Rights, as the police while doing so no way violated the essential dignity of the accused as a human and as a citizen.
Besides, the two pronged test propounded in Katz v. United States (1967), when applied to the issue under consideration does nullify the appeal made by the accused. While exchanging the text messages associated with his illegal activities, the accused was no way exhibiting an expectation of privacy as he was well aware that he was exchanging these text messages with the intention to facilitate his unlawful activities, and thereby, through the exercise of commonsense, was well aware that such messages and communications would attract the well deserved attention of the law and order machinery. Doe was well aware that he was relying for the exchange of these text messages on the services sold by the local cell phone carrier, and in the light of United States v. Miller (1975), Doe’s rights were not infringed upon if the company as a third party, entrusted his text messages to the police, guided by the belief that it was its legal and constitutional duty to help the police. Besides,