The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures
"The next time you're in California, you might not want to bring your cell phone with you. The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that police can search the cell phone of a person who's been arrested -- including text messages -- without obtaining a warrant, and use that data as evidence.
The ruling opens up disturbing possibilities, such as broad, warrantless searches of e-mails, documents and contacts on smart phones, tablet computers, and perhaps even laptop computers, according to legal expert Mark Rasch."
Source
9 comments:
Posting an article from MSNBC? JJR, How can you trust a leftist news source? I am deeply disappointed in you.
Need to encrypt your data with a secure PGP technology with a way to add a "kill word" so that entry of a 2nd password wipes the device's memory if you're compelled to give it?
Yeah, there'll be an app for that soon....
Wait, did the GOP take over CA? I've always been told (and told and told and ...) that the evil GOP is the party that wants to resurrect the Gestapo. What's going on here?
"Need to encrypt your data with a secure PGP technology with a way to add a "kill word" so that entry of a 2nd password wipes the device's memory if you're compelled to give it?"
Do that, and refuse to hand them the data unencrypted on request/demand, even without a warrant, and you're guilty of obstruction of a police investigation, obstruction of justice, destroying evidence, and possibly a host of other crimes.
That's already been decided a few years ago when the TSA started doing similar datagrabs on random passengers' laptops just because they could.
Are the police allowed to search without a warrant your wallet, purse, or briefcase? If they are, then a cell phone should be fair game. If they are not, then please explain to me what is the difference.
-sig
That's already been decided a few years ago when the TSA started doing similar datagrabs on random passengers' laptops just because they could.
Not exactly. The TSA works under the principle that you agree to the searches when you fly. It is part of the airline's contract with you.
That is not the same thing as a search done by police.
If they are, then a cell phone should be fair game. If they are not, then please explain to me what is the difference.
The difference is that the purse and the briefcase can be searched without a warrant because of the threat to the safety to the police as you may be carrying a weapon in those items. The 4th Amendment allows for "reasonable" searches and protecting a law enforcement officer is reasonable in the eyes of the courts.
The wallet may be searched as to determine your true identity subsequent to your arrest.
The cell phone is different. The officers should have the right to see that the phone is not a weapon, but searching the phone for numbers, info, etc goes beyond a search for the sake of their safety.
Remember the key phrase here, "can search the cell phone of a person that's been arrested"
The police don't need a warrant to search someone who's been arrested.
The police don't need a warrant to search someone who's been arrested.
A person is not a cell phone. A cell phone is not a person.
The police have had the right to search the immediate area of a crime without a warrant. They have the right to search for weapons to protect their safety.
Courts have ruled that a briefcase may be opened if the police are trying to secure their safety. Otherwise, some courts have said that to examine the contents of the briefcase requires a warrant.
The cell phone should be the same thing. Once it was determined that the cell phone was not a weapon, the police should be required to get a warrant.
To further illustrate this, assume that a person is arrested in his home with his computer sitting in the corner. The police must obtain a warrant to search the contents of the computer. They cannot just go over to it and start looking through it.
A cell phone should be no different. The police have the person in custody and they can wait for the appropriate warrant.
Could this again be the infamous 9TH CIRCUT COURT again ruling another stupid ruling from dim-wit judges
Post a Comment