FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 01/18/2014 2:36:24 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether police can search an arrested criminal suspect's cell phone without a warrant in two cases that showcase how the courts are wrestling to keep up with rapid technological advances.
Taking up cases from California and Massachusetts arising from criminal prosecutions that used evidence obtained without a warrant, the high court will wade into how to apply older court precedent, which allows police to search items carried by a defendant at the time of arrest, to cell phones.
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Related articles:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/police-search-suspect-39-cellphone-no-warrant-supreme-230659458.html
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-weigh-police-power-search-arrestees-39-202006173.html
Good luck with that, my phone nukes itself if you enter the code wrong enough times.
Why is it that everyone forgot this about a warrant?
“particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
In other words, EXACTLY the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That’s what the Constitution says.
And everyone needs to see your own relevant state constitutions for the exact wording.
Hint dint use an iPhone. Cops can easily pull info off of it.
With an iPhone you don’t need a code.
I’m with you. Since the police can and do confiscate, inventory, and securely store all personal effects of an arrested person, to remove weapons and anything that might be used for escape, there are rarely (other than with the ticking bomb found in fiction and in big government fantasies) exigent circumstances which create a compelling need for immediate action to search the phone. If law enforcement wants to do a lawful search, they can get a warrant. Otherwise, government agents have no business searching “persons, houses, papers, and effects” when the phone clearly qualifies as “effects” and is the modern equivalent of “papers”.
I have nothing sensitive on my phone, but I am sensitive to protecting what’s left of our Constitution. If we’re going to throw out evidence based on Miranda violations, we should certainly throw out evidence based on unlawful searches.
More fine tuning to “expectation of privacy”?
Oh, wait, we already know it is not private, the NSA has it all, already.
The school in which I teach is embroiled in a rape case that made international headlines. One of the issues was those who took pics on their iPhones. BCI could not retrieve that data after it was deleted, but only if the owner had not forwarded the pictures.
They are worried about someone initiating a remote wipe before they can get a warrant according to the article.
I read the article and saw nothing about that possibility, nor did I see any indication in either case under consideration that such a possibility was a consideration. One of the phones in question was not even a smart phone. Perhaps I missed it, but even so a remote wipe strikes me more as an excuse than a valid justification. In the rare event that they have a sophisticated criminal, worthy of "24", the police can shield the phone or remove the battery (least intrusive means to preserve evidence, comparable to stationing police outside the private residence of a detained suspect while awaiting a warrant) while waiting for a warrant.
My phone memory is encrypted so there isn’t much they are going to do.
Uh, yes. If the guy was arrested for a crime, why not? If they arrest somebody, can’t they search his car without a warrant?
Oops. Must of been in one of the other linked articles. I agree with your conclusion.
The courts and the police and their respective operations are anachronisms. They are buggy-whip manufacturers who happen to have the force of law behind them.
Like the 19th Century tax code they often enforce, their structures and staffing are meant to protect jobs.
This is why constitutional principles should trump any particulars of contemporary technology. Searching one’s phone without a warrant is the same as searching a home or a vehicle. When courts get tangled up in the minutiae of a case they have unquestionably abandoned their mission.
All formerly "American" institutions are now "Imperial" ones. America died a long time ago. We worker bees just haven't received the memo to stand down.
My cell phone needs a pin number to access it. Let’s say I was arrested and the police wanted to search my phone without a warrant. They ask for the pin number, I refuse. They then obtain a warrant and again ask for the pin number. Do I have to give it to them or can I cite the 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination?
Unless the phone manufacturer build a back door at the direction of the NSA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.