canndo
Well-Known Member
Be careful what you text for in California.
On Monday the Supreme Court of California granted police officers the right to search a suspect's cell phone without a warrant.
Previously, the fourth amendment only allowed officers to search suspects for disclosed weapons without a warrant. According to the new 5-2 ruling, which can only be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, law enforcement officers can go through any content on a suspect's cell phone. According to SF Gate, the majority led by Justice Ming Chin relied on decisions from the 1970s which allowed searches of cigarette packages and clothing seized during an arrest, but without a warrant. In this week's court documents (PDF), the justiced pointed to a case in 2007. Police had caught Ventura County citizen Gregory Diaz trying to sell six pills of ecstasy, to which he denied. However a deputy sheriff, who had pocketed Diaz' cell phone during the arrest, found a text message reading '6 4 80,' which in his experience meant 'six pills for $80.' When confronted Diaz pled guilty but later appealed the unwarranted cell phone search. However the ruling raises privacy concerns, especially as cell phones become more indispensable and equipped with email, browsers, videos, apps, etc. And not every state agrees: In 2009, the Ohio Supreme Court cheekily noted that cell phones should be granted more privacy concerns than a package of cigarettes or a traditional address book. In debating whether or not a cell phone constitutes a "closed container" and therefore subject to a warrantless search, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger wrote for the majority, "Objects falling under the banner of 'closed container' have traditionally been physical objects capable of holding other physical objects. ... Even the more basic models of modern cell phones are capable of storing a wealth of digitized information wholly unlike any physical object found within a closed container."
This will eventualy go to SCOTUS, it is more likely that a conservative court will see this as another new interegation method for police and uphold the ruling.
On Monday the Supreme Court of California granted police officers the right to search a suspect's cell phone without a warrant.
Previously, the fourth amendment only allowed officers to search suspects for disclosed weapons without a warrant. According to the new 5-2 ruling, which can only be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, law enforcement officers can go through any content on a suspect's cell phone. According to SF Gate, the majority led by Justice Ming Chin relied on decisions from the 1970s which allowed searches of cigarette packages and clothing seized during an arrest, but without a warrant. In this week's court documents (PDF), the justiced pointed to a case in 2007. Police had caught Ventura County citizen Gregory Diaz trying to sell six pills of ecstasy, to which he denied. However a deputy sheriff, who had pocketed Diaz' cell phone during the arrest, found a text message reading '6 4 80,' which in his experience meant 'six pills for $80.' When confronted Diaz pled guilty but later appealed the unwarranted cell phone search. However the ruling raises privacy concerns, especially as cell phones become more indispensable and equipped with email, browsers, videos, apps, etc. And not every state agrees: In 2009, the Ohio Supreme Court cheekily noted that cell phones should be granted more privacy concerns than a package of cigarettes or a traditional address book. In debating whether or not a cell phone constitutes a "closed container" and therefore subject to a warrantless search, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger wrote for the majority, "Objects falling under the banner of 'closed container' have traditionally been physical objects capable of holding other physical objects. ... Even the more basic models of modern cell phones are capable of storing a wealth of digitized information wholly unlike any physical object found within a closed container."
This will eventualy go to SCOTUS, it is more likely that a conservative court will see this as another new interegation method for police and uphold the ruling.
