The Supreme Court is about to rule on two cases involving police using an arrested person's cell phone to obtain evidence to be used against the person in court. In one case, the cops arrested a guy who appeared to be selling drugs from his car. They arrested him and looked through his cell phone and found his home phone #. They went to his home and found drugs, cash, and guns. In another case, which happened here in San Diego, a guy was stopped by the cops for a burned out tail light (or something as insignificant). They searched the car and found two guns. They then searched his cell phone and found pictures and other evidence that tied him to a violent gang murder. Both the convicted men appealed all the way to the Supreme Court that searching their cell phones violated their Fourth Amendment rights, that their phones were essentially their person, houses, papers, and/or effects. These were searched without a warrant. I think it's an interesting question. Past cases that resemble these two would allow the cops to look through someone's phone without warrant. These rulings are the basis for the lower courts' rulings against the two. However, given the nature of how mobile phones have evolved, it's clear that phones do contain peoples' virtual personas, important papers, and are a person's private effects. Or at least that is the argument that is why the Court is going to hear the cases. The Obama Administration argues for the police - that they should be able to look through a phone's data without a warrant. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ourt-to-allow-warrantless-cellphone-searches/ It seems Justice Scalia is opposed, based upon a string of his recent decisions and dissents (all in favor of civil liberties). http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-cellphone-20140428,0,5654472.story#axzz30HTN7Knu My view... As bad as these two guys are, and they do belong in jail, they are entitled to due process. That phones have builtin protections (pin codes, etc.) to protect privacy is an expectation of privacy. That a person's right against unreasonable searches extend to paperless documents and ones that are located outside a person's residence. The cops should get a warrant, specific to the exact thing they are searching the phone for. So what do you think?
their phones weren't part of the original offenses. why should the cops have the right to search their phones? Both crimes that were committed involved cars, so their phones should remain private.
Established law is they can search the cars, and the person. The phones were in the car or on the person.
you're right, but phones aren't cars or people. IMO, all the cops should do is set it to the side unless it's a previously noted object of interest.
Obama's position is that the phone is no different than a ledger of detailed drug deals that might be found in the car. Established cases would allow the ledger to be used as evidence against the person.
On case #1 How did they find drugs/cash/guns at the guys house without getting a warrant first to open said house? Also, if they've had probable cause to arrest him for selling drugs then again, I agree with them searching his phone. On case #2 Were the guns unregistered to the person? Were they stolen? If those two questions are true, then I believe they had probable cause to search his cell and I support that. If not, then I do not support it. Both cases seem to me like the phones are evidence items and as such I believe should be treated like evidence items normally are. I'm all down for civil liberties but this shit seems like a loophole for the bad guys (which they are) to get off the hook and continue to do what they do. Fuck that.
Case #3. You are pulled over for a busted tail light. They search your cell phone and find some drug dealer called you, even accidentally dialed you. They arrest you and send you to jail for 15 years based on that information. The information not related to why you were stopped. The issue is they are effectively able to use the phone for a fishing expedition to link you to a crime you are not a suspect in. The case was heard, a ruling expected in a couple months: http://www.npr.org/2014/04/29/30806...ders-where-lines-drawn-in-cell-phone-searches
Those bastards need to be in prison, but deserve "due process" like you mentioned. This is a slippery slope, that now can trickle down to other types of cases. The moment that something like this is allowed, then any attorney can use this case to warrant their cellphone evidence to a different case.
What are the laws regarding computers? Are warrants not required to search through them? Seems to me that however the law treats one, it should treat the other.
That was my assumption. Smart phones are essentially mini-computers at this point. I would opine that the laws governing the two should be congruent--unless someone can provide a cogent argument for why they should differ.
Obama argues that the phone is evidence seized at time of arrest and is subject to existing precedents about being able to search such things. However, the justices seem to have asked the right questions - about how they're not looking at 5 photos in a guy's wallet, they're potentially looking at thousands.
Again I would ask, if they found the guy's laptop in the car, or in a backpack he was carrying, would they be able to search it without a warrant? If no, then they shouldn't be able to search the phone either. If yes, then the phone should be fair game too. Consistency is all I ask for.
The rulings are mixed. For example: http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/12/when-can-police-search-cell-phones-laptops.html If it were decided already, the Supreme Court wouldn't be hearing the case
Even though the blog mentions laptops, every case cited is about cell phones. Can you find any source indicating that warrantless searches of laptops are permissible? My quick research shows that searches by border patrol don't require warrants, but searches by police do, unless probable cause exists. And the elements that comprise probable cause must be much more than, "this guy is suspected of criminal activity". I'm not saying that the cell phone aspect has been decided. What I'm saying (for the third time now?) is that whatever rulings exist regarding personal computers should be extended to cell phones as well, because there is in reality very little practical difference between the two.
Just about everyone has a phone and carries it everywhere. The same cannot be said for laptops. It is some sort of "right" as ObamaPhones prove. So there is a difference. Tho I agree that the decision about phones should also apply to tablets, laptops, and any other device that might contain private information.
We all know your cell phone is uniquely private. It's self-evident. A warrant should be a necessity to search a phone. It is your virtual home, and there aren't a lot of exceptions to the rule that you need a warrant to search a home. It's maybe the biggest privacy right issue around right now. The 4th Amendment limits government. And now, finally, I sound like you Denny!
We win! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/25/supreme-court-bans-warrantless-cell-phone-searches/ Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches Major ruling updates privacy laws for 21st century The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot go snooping through people’s cell phones without a warrant, in a unanimous decision that amounts to a major statement in favor of privacy rights.
